ation we must keep working towards the next big thing. investments in education and basic scientific research are the down payment on our future. it is critical we maintain these investments at the time our country faces so mean unique challenges. growing income inequality is a threat to our middle class our economy and our democracy. while globalization is opening new markets for american goods it is also hollowing out the mid level jobs that are the foundation of the american middle class. and without a strong middle class, we cannot have a strong economy. and without a strong middle class, we simply cannot have a strong democracy. there are many ideas about how to deal with these challenges, but history has taught us that increased productivity is the number one driver of economic progress, and in my view the key to american greatness. economic historians tell us after hundreds of years of zero economic growth, ground-breaking

innovations change the face of commerce. in the mid 1700's came the cotton gin the steam engine and railroads, followed by more breakthroughs in the 1800's, electricity, the internal combustion engine and even indoor plumbing. before indoor plumbing, a recent study estimated the average housewife spent nearly 150 hours per year walking back and forth to gather 3.5 tons of water for her family to cook, clean and drink. the technology of indoor plumbing alone unleashed enormous gains in productivity. today, we have tablets and smart phones and social media but if we're going to solve the tough challenges facing the middle-class families and all those who aspire to be in the middle class, we will need to unleash even more productivity and more innovation. we will need to discover the next big thing. and i don't know what that next big thing will be, but i do know the federal government must continue investing in the seed

corn of basic research and development. from the facility for rare isotope beams at michigan state to wayne state's bioresearch facility to the university of michigan's extensive joint projects with nasa, our state's universities are leading the way in research. the research being conducted at our universities is also creating jobs in michigan as these transformative technologies are commercialized. students are not just inventing new technologies, they're also inventing their own jobs and companies. for example using technology developed at the university of michigan for nasa to measure electric fields resulting from dust storms blowing across mars, a start-up spinoff of these efforts is now creating jobs here on earth to help an electric company monitor their utility lines. innovation is creating new industries in michigan and is also revolutionizing many of our

existing industries. advanced sensors robotics and big data will allow precision agriculture that boosts productivity and conserves natural resources. one industry that has always meant jobs for michigan is, of course the automobile industry. we are on the verge of an automotive technological revolution that will allow vehicles to communicate with their location, speed and other data electronically with each other and our transportation infrastructure as well. research by the national highway traffic safety administration estimates this technology can reduce accidents by 80% save fuel and cut congestion at a time when americans spend an estimated five vacation days a year stuck in traffic. when more than 30,000 americans are killed in accidents on our roads and highways every year, the advancement of this kind of technology will literally save thousands of lives. this means active crash

avoidance technology that stops accidents before they happen and before long autonomous vehicles that drive themselves. this is truly revolutionary technology packaged with horsepower and torque, my favorite part of the car. but the federal government has to do its part to develop and protect this technology. one of my top priorities as a new member of the senate commerce committee is to ensure that vehicles have the wireless spectrum that they need to communicate with each other and to make our roads safer. as manufacturing and technology merge, michigan is prepared to lead the way. what were once separate industries are now merging into complements in the battle for the future that america must win. federal investment in research and development is just that, an investment that has paid off many times over. investment in research supports the new technologies and industries of the future, drives job creation and produces technologies critical to our national security.

necessary federal investment in infrastructure and innovation is only possible if those of us here in congress take our jobs seriously as stewards of taxpayer dollars and look for places to end unnecessary wasteful spending. we also will not be able to accomplish anything without embracing pragmatism and bipartisanship. we cannot focus on whether ideas come from a republican or a democrat. we need to focus only on whether the idea has merit and is good for the country. this is why i have spent my first five months in office the way that i intend to spend the rest of my career in public service -- reaching across the aisle to find common ground. and the practical solutions that will make our government work better. drive innovation and competitiveness and keep michigan and america safe and strong. i have introduced legislation with senator gardner from colorado to increase oversight of duplicative spending and force congress to act on deficit reduction. i worked with senator ernst from

iowa to introduce legislation to extend the tax credit for small businesses that support their activated military reservist employees. senator lankford of oklahoma and i worked on a bill that would ensure federal agencies use remanufactured auto parts when maintaining their fleets, an idea that will save natural resources and taxpayer dollars while supporting our country's remanufactured parts industry. just two days ago this bill unanimously passed the senate. i worked with senator risch from idaho to help our businesses create the capital they need to grow and create jobs. senator cornyn and senator graham and i created a bipartisan commission to examine our nation's judicial system from the top to the bottom and to make sure that it is working for all americans. senator sullivan and i worked together to introduce a bill to

cut excise taxes in small craft distillers a growth industry in michigan, alaska and america. i'm also proud to say the legislation i introduced with senator cassidy from louisiana to provide training for medical professionals to identify victims in human trafficking was also signed into law after it passed the senate as part of a larger bill on human trafficking. i was sent here to represent the people of michigan, and they want congress to work together in a bipartisan way to solve the challenges facing our country. we must focus more on what we have in common and less on our differences. we should work on ideas that are good for our country and good for our states. i have worked to be a practical problem solver in my first few months here, and it's what i intend to do in the years ahead. there is much to be done, and i will work tirelessly for the people of michigan. my weeks in washington, unfortunately, keep me apart from my wife colle. n and my children, madeleine

alana and gary jr. but their love and steadfast support is with me each and every day. colleen was raised by her parents in oakland county, like me and together we share a passion for public service. i'm so pleased that colleen and madeleine are here today with me in the senate gallery. here on the senate floor, we are standing on the shoulders of giants. this includes our nation's founding fathers and more recent predecessors. my staff and i recently moved into the hart senate office building named after senator phil hart from michigan, a man rightfully known as the conscience of the senate and a role model for all of us. i could not be happier that my office will be right around the corner from my close friend, mentor colleague and respected leader in the senate, senator debbie stabenow. i'm honored that debbie has joined me today on the senate floor for this speech. and of course i am deeply

honored to succeed senator carl levin, another one of my mentors and a man who defined what it meant to be a public servant. the careers of senators levin hart riegle, and other michiganders who preceded me provide the foundation on which i hope to build our shared future and create the best michigan possible. not only the kind of michigan that we want to live in, but the kind of michigan that our children and grandchildren will want to spend their lives in, a michigan that is a magnet for migration and unbridled opportunity for families and small businesses, and a state that will lead the world in innovation. i look forward to working with my colleagues here in the senate and michiganders across the state to mick a better future for all of us a reality. together, we will continue to build a state and a country that embody the opportunity the possibility and the promise that has made our country a shining beacon for so many around the

globe. mr. president, i yield back. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: i want to take just a minute and express my appreciation to the senator from michigan the junior senator from michigan, in his maiden speech. it was terrific. it was delivered well and it's what michigan is all about. i appreciate it very, very much. he has big shoes to fill, those of carl levin. we all know what a giant he was in the senate. from senator levin to senator stabenow, they have both said that gary peters can do it. i'm impressed with him very, very much. he is a team player. he's willing to do the hard lifting, i appreciate that very much. he mentioned senator levin. of course we all admired him so very, very much. but also, applicant i want to take just a minute to talk about his partner in the senate today debbie stabenow. as he mentioned, she is a part

of senate leadership. she is there because she deserves it. there is no one that works harder than debbie stabenow. if there were a role model for my friend, gary peters, to follow and a work ethic debbie stabenow is the perfect person. so thank you very much i say to the junior senator from michigan, for being who he is. we have gotten to know him now six months, and we like him very, very much. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: well, mr. president, first i'm very deeply appreciative of our leader's comments. thank you very much. and i just want to add my words of pride in the fact that we have such a wonderful senator now coming to the senate and the fact that he is fighting so hard for michigan and already doing a wonderful job and i'm just so pleased that he's my partner and it was a wonderful speech today. thank you. mr. durbin: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: mr. president i want to congratulate the junior senator from michigan for his opening speech here in the united states senate. my state of illinois is separated from his state of michigan by another state and a great lake, but we have many things in common. the people of chicago and illinois many of them, spend a lot of money in the state of michigan particularly in western michigan. we love your state it's a beautiful state. many of us vacation there and get to know the people. we have so much in common, as midwesterners, looking at the world from our vantage point smack dab in the middle of this country, and bringing to the conversation in the united states senate many of the values that have guided our lives and inspired our families. i listened carefully and thought it's amazing that we have such parallel back grounds. a father who can trace his family roots back to the revolutionary war and in both cases, mothers who were immigrants to this country. so being a first generation

american, i'm sure you feel, as i do, a special honor standing on the floor of the united states senate representing a state as great as michigan or illinois. i want to just say mr. president, that my colleague's background in the house of representatives prepared him well for this challenge, and although he follows one of the greats in the history of the u.s. senate, carl levin, he brings to this job an extraordinary talent and a great partnership with senator stabenow. already the two of them have been in contact with me about michigan's needs as they relate to our defense, department of defense, and it is a significant investment which michigan has made over the years in keeping america strong, one we want to continue for many generations to come. i'm glad your family was here today to be part of this opening of your service -- official opening of your service in the united states senate, and i certainly look forward to working with you for many years to come.

mr. president, i'd like to make a comment in morning business in a separate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president this morning, the majority leader, the republican leader, senator mcconnell, came to the floor to speak to us about the challenge we are going to face as soon as this week when it comes to the department of defense. this is a department i have paid special attention to over the last several years during the time that i chaired the defense appropriation subcommittee and now served as ranking member or vice chairman of that same subcommittee. first i want to salute the chairman of appropriation and defense subcommittee, thad cochran of mississippi. it's been a joy to work with him. he is a professional. he is a kind and gentle man and fair in every respect. i told him on the floor yesterday what i have said publicly in my caucus luncheon, the democratic caucus luncheon, i am fortunate to have a partner in this effort from the republican side who is so good to work with, but we face a real serious challenge this week and

we have to decide as a nation what we're going to do about it. most people, if you ask them on a final exam, what what does sequestration mean, they would basically throw up their hands and say it sounds like something out of washington, it doesn't mean much to me. sequestration is the temperature we face if we don't hit certain budget spending numbers and that penalty is virtually mindless because here's what it says -- we will make across-the-board cuts in spending. think about that in your own family life. if you were looking at the budget for your family, and had some misfortune, a paycheck didn't come in, you would have to gauge priorities. well we're sitting over the kitchen table what do we have to pay this month? better pay the mortgage or we'll be foreclosed. better pay the light bill. what can we cut back on? less at the grocery store. families make those on a weekly

and monthly basis but sequestration said we'll cut across the board. we'll take a 5% cut off the mortgage, off the utility bill and off the groceries. didn't make sense did it? but we did it. did it for two years and it was devastating. we cut across the board when it came to medical research, for goodness sakes. here's we were trying to find cures for cancer and heart disease and diabetes and alzheimer's and we said we're going to make a 5% cut across the board. made no sense whatsoever. nor did it make sense for the department of defense. they said how in the world can we prepare for america's defense with across-the-board cuts? we're supposed to be recruiting and training the very best men and women to serve our nation. they need to be ready for combat. we've got to make them battle read ready so they'll win any battle they're sent to and come home safe. we've got to decide what equipment to purchase, how to are invest in long-term

investments in technology and equipment so that we never come in second in any battle. and you're going to give us an across-the-board cut congress? stop it. stop sequestration. that's what this debate is about. what we have now is a proposal from the republican side of the aisle to stop sequestration across-the-board cuts in only one agency the department of defense. i think that's a good thing to stop it, but it certainly isn't a balanced approach. we've got a lot of other things we do as a government that are important to the people of this country. we finance the education of young people who want to go to college. we do it with pell grants and with government loans and if we're going to make across-the-board cuts there we're going to create hardships and lack of opportunity for a lot of young people in america. sequestration when it comes to education makes no sense. and when it comes to health care it certainly makes no sense. we have obligations that we have entered into. when it comes to our veterans

and their health care, are we going to make across-the-board cuts when it comes to veterans' health care? god forbid. we promised those men and women if they'd serve our country we would stand by them when they came home. sequestration is a mindless cut when it comes to education and health care and medical research i mentioned earlier. so democrats are saying to republicans here we are on june 17, our fiscal year ends on october 1 let us not wait until the last minute to sit down and work out this problem. but what we hear from the other side of the aisle is we're not going to do it. we're just going to ignore it. that's the problem in washington. when you don't face challenges squarely honestly, on a bipartisan basis. so here's what's likely to occur this week. we're going to vote for an authorization bill on the department of defense. some of us will oppose the way it's being funded, but others will vote for it. and then we'll come to the

defense appropriation bill and i think what you will find is a unified effort on the democratic side to say to the republicans now is the time to sit down. not just on this appropriation bill but all the appropriations bills. let us come up with an answer and solution to sequestration. i heard the republican leader say, well, this is an indication that the democrats are not committed to the defense of america. i couldn't disagree more. because you see when we look at those who agree with us on the need for a different approach to budgeting they include our secretary of defense, ash carter, they include the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general dempsey. the men who have been assigned the responsibility of leading this great military and keeping america safe say that this budget process which the republican leader endorses is not a good one for the safety of america. so let's do the right thing for men and women in uniform, for our country and for all the

agencies of government. let's sit down and solve this budget challenge now before it reaches the last minute in a crisis let's do it in june rather than in september october, november, or december let's do it calmly on a bipartisan basis, engage the president as well as our colleagues from both sides of the aisle in congress. that is the responsible bipartisan honest way to face the problem. i hope that the republican leader will join us in that effort. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: i just wanted to commend our leader from illinois for bringing up what is so critically important which is the entire budget of the country and it's important that we get it right in supporting the authorization in front of us, i understand that the defense of our country is much more than just the department of defense as a border state in michigan,

border security which is not in the defense appropriation is incredibly important. cybersecurity as we're hearing more and more about the front line of our men and women first responders, police officers firefighters, who do we think actually answers the call in a community when there is some kind of a local challenge or a terrorist attack, airport security, i could go on and on. all things that are not in in the appropriations bill for the department of defense. and, unfortunately without a bipartisan agreement to continue what was a very positive two-year agreement put together that's been called the ryan-murray agreement to be able to balance out all of the needs, all of the security needs of our country in terms of the budget, security needs as well as economic security needs, without that, it is a mistake to begin the

appropriations process one bill at a time. and so from my perspective on behalf of the people of michigan whatever appropriation bill comes up next no matter what it is, we should not begin that process until we have a bipartisan agreement as we had for the last two years so that no part of our national security is hurt or economic security for the future of our country. until we do that -- and we can do that, mr. president. we've done it before. until we do that, we should not begin the process piecemeal of appropriations. thank you mr. president. mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: last week president obama spoke at a meeting of the catholic health association. and he told the association that his health care law as i said worked out better than some of us anticipated. well, i can tell you, the

president's health care law has worked out much worse much worse than the american people expected. it has worked out much worse than the president promised much worse than the president promised it was going to work. hardworking families all across the country are suffering under the president's complicated confusing, and costly health care law. the new senator from michigan just gave his maiden speech this morning and i welcome him to the senate. the senior senator from maryland gist spoke on the floor. last week she talked about the millions of americans who need subsidies to help cover the cost of these outrageously expensive obamacare mandates. well for many people in her home state of michigan, obamacare hurts michigan. this insurance is going to get a

lot more expensive for the people of michigan next year. the obama administration released new numbers recently showing how much more people are going to have to pay for their obamacare plans next year. there's one company in michigan that's requested a rate increase of 38%. there are more than 20,000 people in michigan who get their obamacare insurance from this company today. these people are looking at the prospect of their insurance costing 38% more next year. other families in michigan are facing rate hikes of 11% or 17% or 37% depending on the specific plan they're in. and it's not just happening in michigan. in washington state one company says its premiums next year will be 19% higher. now, there are more than 7,000 people in washington state who get their insurance from that company plan.

another company says it's raising its rates 9.6%. people in washington are facing much higher insurance premiums and they will still have the narrow networks that so many americans have to deal with because of obamacare. when i say narrow network i mean fewer choices of hospitals, fewer choices of doctors to take care of them, limiting their choices plus paying more. so how big of a problem is it? "the wall street journal" had an article about these people the other day. this was friday, june 12. the headline is "surprises in health law bills." consumers say that out-of- out-of-network charges often aren't flagged beforehand, they call it medical bill shock. this is under the president's health care law. medical bill shock surprises in health law bills. and it tells the story of angela

gibbons from washington state. she has insurance through the state obamacare exchange, she has obamacare. make no question about it. when she went to have a mammogram it turned out that the place that did the screening was outside her network so she got a bill for $932. president obama promised that people would pay less under the health care law. instead, people all across the country are getting stuck with surprise bills because of these narrow networks. and in spite of it their premiums are going to jump again next year. now, there are some democrats who say that people shouldn't worry about these dramatic premium increases because they say the average increase -- this is the democrats -- the average increase they say in some places won't be that high. well there's a new study that looked at the rate request in eight different states for next year fixed it says that in those eight states, premiums for the

silver plan in the obamacare exchange will only go up by an average 6%. the study says in connecticut the average silver plan is only going to raise premiums 4%. it says if you shop around, if you shop around, you might be able, might be able to find a new plan next year that will go up by less than your current plan is going up. so they're saying across the board they're going up, the question is how are how much, and you might find a place not going up quite as much as they are with your current plan. is that what president obama promised the american people? did he promise that the american people that the rates would only go up 6%? no. that's not what he promised. he said rates would go down by $2,500 per family per year. did president obama say that your rates will go up a little less if you're willing to change plans every year? no. he said if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance. that's what the president said.

did the president promise that maybe your rates won't go up by quite as much if you're willing to accept a narrow network of providers? did he say you should change your doctor every year by switching plan to plan? no, of course, not. he said if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. i want to make another point mr. president, about this new study. it's only talking about the average increases. across all the plans offered in eight states. even if the average premium is only going up 6% in those eight states a lot of people are going to end up paying much much more. families in connecticut who may have to pay 16% more next year. that's how much more one company in connecticut wants to charge almost 26,000 people who buy the obamacare plans today. does the president think that these families are happy that the average increase is only 14 -- is only 4% when they get

an increase of 16%? is that what the president means when he says that his health care law is working better than he anticipated? and he said it just last week. because there are a lot of people in connecticut who say it's not working and it's working much worse than they anticipated. people have been writing to the state insurance department in connecticut and they're angry they're angry and alarmed at the president about obamacare price would be hikes. -- price hikes. one person said their company is requesting an increase of 14.3% in connecticut. democrats say the average may be only 4%. some people will be paying over 14% more next year. the person asks, does the average worker get a 14% salary increase? that's not what the people of michigan or washington or connecticut or anywhere else thought they were going to get when democrats called the law the affordable care act.

sometime in the next couple of weeks, the supreme court is going to decide whether it's legal or not for president obama to spend some of the billions of taxpayer dollars that he's been spending on the health care law. now, the decision could affect more than 6 million americans. republicans have been watching this case very closely. we've been working on ideas to protect these people and to protect all americans from the damages caused by the president's health care law. if the court rules against the president, then republicans will be ready to sit down with democrats to improve health care in america. we will take the opportunity to protect the people from obamacare's broken promises and to provide freedom to the people who are trapped in washington-mandated health care. it will be up to the president and democrats in congress whether they want to join us. or if they want to continue to

insist that this law is working better than they anticipated. i hope they'll work with us work with us on reforms that the american people need, want and deserve. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. isakson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: mr. president before he leaves the floor, i want to commend the distinguished snarm from wyoming, a physician -- senator from wyoming a physician himself, not not just for his litany of remarks today but throughout the affordable care act. for six years he's been an outspoken voice for what's right for the american people. i appreciate his contribution not just to the debate today but to the debate we've had in the past and the one we're about to have in the future. because he is right we must come together, republicans and democrats alike and make sure

that the broken promises of the affordable care act are fixed that affordable, accessible quality health care is available to the american people, that it's delivered by private competitive free enterprise system and the government mandates that force prices up, quality down go away. so i want to thank the senator for his contribution and all the great work that he does. he may be -- he's not quite as old as he but he might like the movie i like, "butch cassidy and the sundance kid? did you ever see that? there's a great line in that movie where they're sitting in a cave after having robbed a bank and butch says, "boy, i just love it when a plan comes together." six years later as you look back on the affordable care act the plan is unraveling. it's costing the american people more, health care is less accessible deductibles are higher. it's time we fixed and fixed it right. and if the king v. burwell case is decided as it will be in the next few weeks, we have an obligation to keep the first promise the president did not keep. remember president obama said if you like your insurance you can keep it?

well, if burwell loses and if king wins and the courts rule that the subsidies are illegal approximately 9 1/2 million american who have gotten insurance under the affordable care act would threatening to have their health care lost immediately upon the decision. we can't let that happen. we've got to see we build a bridge from where we are today to a future of better health care more accessible health care and more affordable health care. so we must remember as republicans, who are so often criticized the president for that remark about if you like your health care you can keep it making sure that we don't become an unwitting accomplice in this decision if king wins by first and foremost ensuring the 9 1/2 million that have coverage, we will work to see that you can keep your coverage and you have a bridge to a better more competitive affordable health care system. it's important for us to remember that. number two it's important for us to remember that we can't re-create a system that the president created in items of paying for the health care system. have you ever thought about how the affordable care act is paid for? it's paid for in the following

ways. one, higher co-payments one less benefits, one higher premiums, but even worse a revenue system that actually punishes free enterprise. the5% medical loss ratio rate that cut on the every american insurance man who sold plans then you've only got 15% for administration there's nothing to compensate anybody for selling the policy. that's number one. number two when we were short of $19 billion the president decided to create the head tax. what's the head tax? it's an arbitrary tax against small- and medium-sized group medical companies on -- charging them not on their premium not on their revenue but on their percentage of market share. where in the world has the government ever decided to take market share as an indicator of how much you pay? it made no sense unless you were trying to find dollars to make sense and the president did it. and i could go over litany after litany after litany. the medical device tax with for orthopedist deals with devices

in everything he does. it's not on a net tax on profit for medical devices. it's a 2.3% surcharge on the gross revenues for the device manufacturer. i tell my story about my visit to south africa two years ago when i got a call from my governor. you're in johannesburg, south africa, would you go visit with a georgia company from ken saw georgia, a small medical device manufacturer who's selling their product and just tell them thank you for their business. i should, sure, i went by that evening, found the gentlemen and said thank you so much for doing your business in georgia. he said, oh, i've moved. i said, i'm sorry the governor's office called me and he said, i just announced i'm moving this week. they don't know it yet. i said where are you moving? he said, madrid. spain? yes. because the medical device tax is making it impossible for me to do what i need to do in terms of innovation, in terms of marketing and distribution. so it was an ill-conceived act with the best of intentions but the worst of results. how bad? just like senator barrasso said a minute ago in georgia one plan is going up 38%.

one plan. that's the highest that we know of. not 4%, not 10% not 11% not 17% but 38%. there are 10,79 georgians who have that plan who now have the alternative going to find something else or paying 38% more. i don't know about you, i don't know about everybody else but wages aren't growing by 38%. opportunity's not growing by 38%. but if the cost of health care, which you want to have, grows by 38%, you have to pay. what does that do? it hurts the economy, the family and the american people. so as we look at the results of what's going to happen with king v. burwell if king is ruled in favor and the courts throw out the subsidies on the affordable care act we need to first of all do no harm, that nobody immediately loses insurance that they planned on. we need to keep the promise president obama made and never kept. that's number one. in you be two we need to get everybody in the same room, republicans and democrats alike providers and beneficiaries alike and let's build a health care system for the 21st

century for america. that rewards the best health care system in the world by allowing it to innovate, by encouraging it to compete and not by making arbitrary decisions on cost and taxation which drive people out of the marketplace and out of business. i'm at that age where i care about my health care, i enjoy my health care, i like the policy that i've got. it costs me a lot more than it did before the affordable care act but insurance is important. but there's a limit to what i can absorb, there's a limit to what the american people can absorb and there's a limit to what government can do to try to fit a square peg in a round hole. i learned in boy scouts that doesn't work. the affordable care act is a square peg for six years we've tried to fit in a round hole that doesn't exist. it's time we rounded that peg took into consideration the american people, the taxpayers and the physicians and did what's right for the american people. don't break our promises. let's keep our promises. let's allow them to have the choice of insurance policies that once they buy them, they can keep them, and a system that doesn't mandate increases but instead encourages competition and caught and makes sure the

health care of the american people want is accessible, affordable, available and delivered in a competitive free enterprise market by the private sector. i thank the chair for the time. and i yield back the rest of my time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i would like to speak about several amendments that i've introduced to the defense authorization bill currently before the senate. first of all i'd like to commend chairman mccain in his first mission as chairman of the senate armed services committee. the bill before us bears his imprint and that of the senate armed services committee and it addresses the growing challenges facing our military. this legislation came out of committee in a bipartisan way

and came to the floor with the opportunity for every member of the united states senate to offer amendments to this bill. it was an open amendment process, something that we have been doing this year that hasn't been done previously under the leadership of now -- the now minority. unfortunately that effort was blocked by the minority and we now are where we are. i have introduced amendments which hopefully will be carried now in a managers' package with the support of senator mccain and others here and i just want to describe what those were. first of all though, let me say that despite the efforts of the minority to block our progress on this bill perhaps one of the most essential things the united states senate and the united states congress does in any year is to provide for the common defense by passing authorization

and appropriation for our military so that they have the policy and the authority and the resources to be able to conduct their efforts both defending us here at home and dealing with issues overseas. the bill is a life saver and a national defender and it is not to quote the minority leader, a waste of time. how could anyone come to this floor and simply say that discussing and debating and passing legislation that protects our country and provides support for our military is a waste of time? it just defies credulity has us all scratching our head. nevertheless, we proceeded and we go forward because thankfully under the majority leadership of senator mcconnell and the leadership senator mccain, the chairman of the armed services committee, we are moving forward with this bill. the personnel platforms and

programs in this bill could very well save the lives of our military personnel deployed on the front lines of freedom around the globe and it's necessary that we go forward. and that brings me to the rationale behind the first amendment that i have introduced last week president obama admitted to the nation and to the world that he still does not not -- and i quote here -- "a complete strategy to deal with isis." a year ago this month the terrorist organization, islamic state, proclaimed itself as a worldwide caliphate claiming to control territory in syria and eye rick. isis quickly -- and iraq. isis quickly has become the largest, best organized and best financed and most ambitious terrorist organization in history, not to mention the most brutal terrorist organization that we've ever seen. the previous secretary of defense and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff described the threat arising from isis an

apocalyptic terms as well he should. the unspeakable depravityies committed by isis are large enough and enough to evoke images of death's pale horrors. isis has used sophisticated and successful internet and media outreach tools to attract tens of thousands of radical islamists to join the fight in syria, iraq and beyond. they have captured and control major population centers in iraq including mosul far lucia and rah -- far lucia -- and ramada. they are throughout syria threatening to dominate any successor state emerging from the syrian civil war. in the meantime isis has also expanded its influence and secured allegiance from cooperating terrorist organizations in yemen liberia

nigeria, niger chad and cameroon. and early last year, the president compared isis to a junior varsity. some junior varsity. looks more like something that rises to the level of a major major threat to the nations of the world not just in the middle east but to the nations of the world. and to call it a junior varsity? then following the terrorist group's dramatic expansion later, the president acknowledged the threat but admitted -- and i quote again -- "we don't have a strategy yet," he said, to confront isis. eventually though, the president did come up with a plan that included two main elements -- training moderate volunteers not american volunteers but iraqi volunteers, to fight isis in syria and training and equipping iraqi defense forces to fight isis in iraq. the first part of that plan has

produced no fighters after a year of talk and has just begun to train the first cohort of 400 volunteers whose training is to be completed in another year or so and even then they will be equipped to assume only defensive missions in syria according to the pentagon. that's the u.s. portion. the iraqi portion deals with training which i'll be talking about here in just a moment. how could this severely limited strategy be even remotely responsive to the isis -- to the means that the isis and the threat isis poses? how is it that isis manages to recruit, transport train deploy and effectively fight tens of thousands of radical men and women while we're spending two years finding and training just 400? in our program in syria? in iraq, 10 years and billions of dollars spent creating defense forces has produced

nothing capable of standing up to the isis fanatics. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said earlier this month that iraqi forces -- and i quote again -- "did not have the will to fight when confronted a vastly inferior" -- vastly inferior -- "islamic state force in this particular battle." they just melted away in mosul and ramadi, said the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. those that we had spent months, if not years and spent very significant amounts of money in training just simply melted away because they did not have the will to fight. the president's intention to train and equip iraqi forces to confront the islamic state has failed to produce an effective fighting force that is adequately led and sufficiently equipped. that is the only conclusion we

can come to after months and years and extraordinary expenditures of dollars to try to deal with the isis threat. the other major component of the president's strategy is air strikes. air power when used as part of an integrated grand strategy, can play an essential role. in this case, there is no integrated larger strategy, and therefore air power is limited in terms of what it can do. the administration's air strikes have been much less effective in dealing with the isis threat than anticipated. they have not halted isis advances in the region. in the words of retired air force general david defula, a key architect of the air campaign in operation desert storm, i quote -- "air power has to be applied like a thunderstorm not a drizzle. in the campaign against the islamic state, we are averaging 12 strike sorties per day.

during operation desert storm in iraq and kuwait, the average was 1,241. air power when properly utilized in concert with troops, support -- that support the effort can bring battlefield success. however, the obama administration has failed, failed to provide the proper number of well-trained american spotters on the ground in iraq designating targets." if you do not have forces in positions to target the exact target air power becomes random and not nearly as effective as it should be, and that has not been authorized by the president as a means of dealing with this issue. and so therefore the limit that -- limits that have been placed on the use of air power have let up in the situation where they are much less

effective than they could be. so it's now been over a year since isis was widely acknowledged as a major threat to our national security. when asked just last week what is and is not working in the fight against isis, the president stated once again that we still do not have a complete strategy to confront isis. instead, he blamed the pentagon and the iraqis for not finalizing a plan, and yet the president says that we still do not have a complete strategy to address this threat. how is that possible? as "the wall street journal" put it in its june 11 editorial and i quote again -- "the fundamental problem with mr. obama's strategy is that he is so determined to show that the u.s. isn't returning to war in iraq that he isn't doing enough to win the war that we're fighting, and in the meantime, the white house announced that we would be sending another 450 troops to iraq to claim sunni tribal fighters. i understand this really means

little more than 50 actual trainers the rest of this small cohort to provide security for themselves. so we're down to about 50 trainers and that's the next step in dealing with the threat that far expands the need to do much much more. we must insist that president obama immediately produce a complete, detailed and realistic plan to confront, degrade and defeat the islamic state. this plan must include realistic, self-substantiated estimates of time frames, resources required, expected allies and anticipated obstacles, and also must include clear definitions of milestones and metrics of success and most importantly the plan must include clear accountability. so i have introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill that would require just that, a sears credible, complete strategy for addressing the threat posed by

isis. president obama has shown a tendency to blame others. the pentagon or allies or sunnis or the iraqi government or congress for its own failures of leadership in this effort. and therefore we must demand a coherent, realistic plan so that the american people can properly apportion the credit for success or the blame for failure where it belongs. let me just briefly talk about a couple of other amendments that i have introduced and i'm hopeful that we can include these two amendments in the manager's package. amendment 1705 addresses the department of defense's present policy of not allowing active duty flag agenda officers to visit our friends in taiwan. instead, d.o.d. relies on retired flag and general officers retired officers to visit taiwan in can what only be seen as appeasing communist china. it is difficult for military

officials in both taiwan and the united states to discuss contingency responses when active duty u.s. generals and flag officers are not able to meet regularly with their taiwanese counterparts. without visiting taiwan, they are not able to familiarize themselves with taiwan's command centers, terrain and operational capabilities. active duty u.s. generals and flag officers have to be able to visit taiwan and see its military in action in order to gain a better understanding of taiwan's armed forces and the weapons they require for self-defense. in the event of an emergency such -- such as humanitarian assistance or disaster relief mission, senior officers from taiwan and the united states will have little, if any experience working together to save the lives of thousands of taiwanese citizens and americans living abroad in taiwan. my amendment would simply state that the department of defense should undertake a program of senior military officer exchanges with taiwan.

note that this amendment does not require such exchanges. i do not believe in tying the military's hands in this sort of matter but i do believe it's important that the senate go on record as concerned about the current policy of refusing to allow such exchanges. the armed forces of taiwan are a very valuable partner of the u.s. military. these visits by our generals and admirals will encourage taiwan to make increased investments in their national defense especially in light of the belligerent behavior demonstrated by the chinese. i understand that there is bipartisan agreement on this amendment, and i hope and trust that we can include this measure in any up coming manager's package. and finally, i have offered amendment 1877 which both require the secretary of the navy to submit to both house and senate armed services committees a report detailing the potential impacts to the industrial base

if the july, 2017, start date for the refueling and complex overhaul of the u.s.s. george washington is delayed by six months, one year or two years. as we have learned last year, when the administration briefly considered postponing the scheduled overhaul of the u.s.s. george washington, is that such delays only drive up costs because of the uncertainty it creates among the industrial base. i hope to avoid a repeat of this mistake by requiring the navy to report on the true costs of any delay, and i hope the senate will agree to this amendment. once again i want to thank senator mccain for his leadership on the defense authorization bill, and i hope the senate will act to pass this critically important bill without delay. this is one of the most essential bills that this congress takes up each year, and to deter this for any political reason simply is not acceptable

when our troops' lives and safety is at risk, and they are there to defend us, they need our support and they need it now. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. the clerk will report the pending business. the clerk: calendar number 99, h.r. 1735, an act to authorize appropriation for fiscal year 2016 for military activities of the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president i'd like to tell my colleagues, i think we are winding down here. we have several other issues to address, but i think it's very possible that we could see the end here for final passage of the bill. there are still some issues that need to be resolved, but i am grateful for the progress that all of my colleagues have made

on both sides of the aisle. mr. president, i'd like to call up and speak briefly on mccain amendment 1482. this amendment would prohibit the secretary of defense or the secretary of a military department from funding or conducting medical research or development projects unless the secretary determines that the research or project is designed to protect enhance or restore the health and safety of members of the armed forces through phases of deployment, combat, medical recovery and rehabilitation. now, mr. president, i will not seek a vote on this amendment but i will say that it is an issue that must be addressed if we are going to spend american tax dollars on defending this nation the security and the men and women who are serving. and what i am going to show my colleagues is the way that what

happens with almost any bad deal around here, and that is the incredible increase in congressionally directed spending on medical research, which is on the department of defense authorization bill, not on the health and human services appropriation but on defense when we are cutting defense when we are experiencing all the bad results of sequestration we continue to grow to nearly a billion dollars in medical research that has nothing to do with defense. i'm all for medical research. i am all in. the national institutes of health has done great things. i'm all for it. but when we take it out of defense spending rather than what it should be taken out of, which is health and human services then i object to that. and i'm aware of the away an

outcry that has taken place at these various organizations which are dedicated to improving the health of americans and so therefore of course i'm not subjecting it to a vote. but it's outrageous that this has gone up to nearly a trillion dollars in spending that's taken out of the department of defense. and my friends what it is is the willie sutton syndrome, and the famous bank robber willie sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he said it's because it's where the money is. so this medical research which has nothing to do with defense comes out of the department of defense. it's wrong and it needs to stop, as every scarce dollar that is earmarked for defense must go to the defense of this nation. and i know what the response is going to be. oh my god mccain, you want to take money away from -- fill

in the blank. no, i am not asking to take money from any medical research. i'm asking that it be put where it belongs and that's not in the department of defense. it's not about disputing the great value of much of the medical research congress in america's taxpayers make possible. i will match my record on support for medical research with anyone, anyone. any person who has reached my advanced age likely has some firsthand experience with the miracles of modern medicine and the gratitude for all who support it. much of the medical research for which congress appropriates money each year helps to extend and improve the lives of many americans. this amendment is not about the value of medical research or whether congress should support it and immediately i will hear the response waiting now oh,

mccain you want to cut all these very beneficial research that helps the lives of americans. no no, i do not. i want it appropriated from the appropriate appropriation bill, not from defense. this amendment is absolutely about what departments and agencies of our government should be funding what kinds of medical research and specifically what the proper role of the department of defense is in this work. over the past 20 years congress has added billions of dollars to department of defense medical research portfolio for disease research that has nothing to do with defense. since 1992, congress has appropriated almost $10 billion for medical research and the department of defense congressionally directed medical research program and only about

$2.4 billion of that $10 billion was for research that could be considered in any way related relevant to the military. to be sure, the department of defense has a proper and vital role to play in medical research that benefits the unique work of our men and women in uniform areas such as prosthetics traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury, among others. however, through years of congressionally directed spending the d.o.d. medical research program has been used to fund research on breast cancer prostate cancer, genetic disorders like muscular dystrophy and even mad cow disease. in other words over the last two decades at a time of war and fiscal challenge even despite sequestration, congress has appropriated $7.3 billion on medical research that is totally unrelated to the military.

money that the department of defense did not request and our military did not need. this graph right behind me shows the explosive growth that has occurred in this program since 1992. at that time, in 1992, congress had funded one research project for breast cancer. over time, that has now grown to 30 separate medical research projects funded by the congress. funding has increased by almost 4,000% from $25 million in 1992 to almost a billion dollars last year. let me repeat. for the benefit of my colleagues spending on medical research at d.o.d. nearly 75% has nothing to do with the military has grown 4,000% since 1992. even the late senator from

alaska, ted stevens under whose leadership the original funding for breast cancer was added, reverseed course in 2006 because the money would be -- quote -- "going to medical research instead of the needs of the military." during the floor debate on the annual defense appropriations bill senator stevens had this to say -- and i quote -- "we could not have any more money going out of the defense bill to take care of medical research when medical research is basically a function of the n.i.h. it is not our business, i confess. i am the one who made the first mistake years ago. i am the one who suggested that we include some money for breast cancer research. it was languishing at the time. since that time, it has grown to $750 million in the last bill we had dealing with medical research that had nothing to do with the department of defense. my friends when senator ted

stevens is saying a congressionally directed spending program has gotten out of hand, you know there's a problem. and yet despite the urgings of senator stevens in 2006, the problem was only -- has only gotten worse since then. last year alone congress appropriated $971.6 million for medical research programs that the department of defense did not request in its budget. more than $280 million of that money was appropriated for cancer research in the defense budget while six other federal agencies spent more than $50 billion on cancer research in fiscal year 2015. let me put that in perspective. for the amount of money that congress appropriated for medical research last year, at the department of defense again, most of which had nothing to do with the military and which the department did not request, we could have bought

12 f-18 superhornets, or roughly one army brigade combat team. my friends in these days of sequestration, that is not acceptable. once again once again, i am sure every member of this body agrees that this research is vitally important to americans suffering from these diseases, to the families and friends who care for them and to all those who know the pain and grief of losing a loved one. but this research should not be funded by the department of defense. it belongs in civilian departments and agencies of our government. appropriating money in this way only harms our national security by reducing the funding available for militarily relevant materials that helps protect men and women on the battlefield and for military capabilities they desperately

need to perform h.r. missions. furthermore this kind of misguideed spending puts decisionmaking in the hands of lobbyists and politicians instead of medical experts where it belongs. so i say to my colleagues, what i had proposed and will not seek a vote on because i'm -- it's very clear that what the result would be, that is a commonsense amendment. it focuses the department's research efforts on medical research that will lead to live saving advancements in battlefield medicine and therapies for recovery and rehabilitation of service members wounded both physically and mentally on the battlefield, could finally begin the long-overdue process of shifting hundreds of millions of dollars of nonmilitary research spending out of the department of defense and into the appropriate civilian departments and agencies of our government. that's a change that needs to start now and i hope my colleagues especially my friends

on the appropriations committee, would make that happen. i want to point out again these started in fiscal year 1992 with $25 million. we're now up to nearly a trillion dollars. and i'm sure that the appropriators have an equal or like amount that they are proposing. and i know i see my colleague from illinois here on the floor who will with vigor and passion and love and every emotion that he has will defend what we are doing because of those who are -- who suffer from illnesses and breast cancer and all of the other terrible things that afflict our society. and i say to my friends who will come to the floor in a high dugeon over what i am proposing, i am not saying that we should cut any of these programs not a single one. we should probably increase them. but let's do them where they belong.

and that is not in the department of defense. while i have the floor i want to talk about some other issues. former secretary of defense bob gates said in an interview over the weekend -- quote -- "what it feels like to me is really what the president said last week, which was a lack of strategy. just adding a few hundred troops doing more of the same i think is not likely to make much of a difference. we should have had a strategy a year ago and we have to be willing if we think isis is truly a threat to the united states and to our interests, we have to be willing to put americans at risk. that's just a fact of life. if the mission president obama has set for military is to degrade and destroy isis, the rules of engagement that he has imposed on them prevent phlegm achieving that mission." i don't know anyone that is more

respected by both sides of the aisle, served presidents of both parties in key administration positions than secretary of defense bob gates. quite often i and my friend from south carolina, senator graham are accused of being biased and partisan and attacking the president and his strategies in a partisan fashion. i would remind my colleagues that in 2006, senator graham and i called for the resignation of the department -- the secretary of defense who was then in a republican administration. in 2006 we said we are losing the war. in 2006 i had a spirited argument with then general dempsey who was in charge of training of the iraqis who assured me everything was going fine and we had a spirited argument when i was showing him the facts when things were going to hell in a hand basket.

so somehow to accuse me and senator graham and others of being making these comments about a feckless, without foundation foreign policy which is allowing isis to succeed does not bear scrutiny. so i agree i agree with form secretary of defense bob gates and i think that what he says what it feels like is the president said last week, which was a lack of strategy -- a lack of a strategy. there is a lack of a strategy. and i want to tell my colleagues that we will be having hearings when we get through with this bill and we'll try to figure out what the congress and the american people should know about what's happening in the world, not just in the middle east. and facts are stubborn things. and the fact is we can knock off an isis or an al qaeda leader and we can trumpet that as a great victory and thank god that it has happened, but to think

that that really has a significant long-term impact on the ability of isis, al qaeda and other terrorist organizations to not reconstitute and continue the success with occasional setbacks that they are achieving and spreading that poison throughout the middle east, the latest being libya aided and abetted in many cases by the iranians, is obviously facts that cannot be denied. so u.s.a. for example, -- "usa today" reports death of al qaeda leader may benefit islamic state. the u.s. missile strike that killed al qaeda's number two leaders is another in a string of devastating blows to the old guard leadership and might help a more brutal terror group the islamic state analysts said.

"the washington post" editorial boardies today a dangerous situation in libya requires a dangerous approach. "the washington post," not known as a right-wing editorial editorial, says their elimination will not eliminate the growing crises in libya and yemen. in that respect it's another example of the limited benefits of president obama's narrow approach to counterterrorism. as "the new york times" today as putin talks more missiles and might cost tell another story. china gives more details on south china sea facilities, and what is very disturbing to my colleagues and that all of us, whether we are members of the intelligence committee or whether we are members of the armed services committee that we must address this issue of

cybersecurity. my friends we just went through a long back-and-forth debate and discussion over whether we should restrict the kinds of telephone phone information, whether it be shared or not shared, who should store it and all that. meanwhile -- meanwhile "the wall street journal" reported on friday hackers likely stole security clearance information during breach of government agencies. hackers who raided the u.s. government's personnel office gained access to secret background investigations conducted on current and former employees, senior administration officials said friday an ominous development in the recent threat to federal data, one of the largest in history. "the washington post" editorial board writes today -- quote -- "a pathetic breach of responsibility on cybersecurity. the breach of office of personnel management networks this year represents a failure

of stewardship and a serious external threat. after the o.p.m. suffered a cyber intrusion in 2015, its director katherine archuleta asked for $26 million in additional funding for cybersecurity. she said the agency stores more personally identifiable information than almost any other in government including banking data for more than two million people. and background investigations for more than 30 million, among them individuals being considered for military enlistment federal job appointments and employment by federal contractors. quote -- "it's imperative ms. archuleta wrote to identify threats to espionage and must be area verted. they were not averted. in april a new breach was uncovered. intruders had stolen the names social security numbers pay

history, health records and other data of some 4.2 million current and former federal workers. it seems to us that just slamming doors and building more firewalls may be an insufficient response to an assault of this magnitude. an essential aspect of deterrence is the credible threat of retaliation. now, why do i quote from that, mr. president? it's because every time we ask a question as to what the policy is whether it is strictly defensive against a cybersecurity or whether offensive in order to prevent one, the policy has -- quote -- "not been determined." i say, mr. president that we have got to address this issue. and first of all we have to have an administration policy, or that policy somehow may be developed here in the congress which is not the right way to do

it. obviously. so i intend to work with senator burr senator feinstein senator senator reed and others in holding hearings and figuring out what we need to do because this is a serious a threat in many respects that we have faced in recent times. finally i'd like to mention that the former c.i.a. chief says government data breach could help china recruit spies. retired general michael hayden who once led national security agency and the central intelligence agency says the theft of government records could allow china to recruit u.s. officials as spies. quote -- "this is a tremendously big deal he said. my deepest emotion is embarrassment. he said the personnel records were a -- quote -- "legitimate foreign intelligence target. he concluded to grab the

equivalent in the chinese system i would not have thought twice i would not have asked for permission. this is not shame on china. this is shame on us for not protecting that kind of information." so mr. president i would urge my colleagues to understand that this new issue of cyber is an area which the united states of america, in the view of many experts, does not have a significant advantage. it is an area where in some respects we may even be at a disadvantage if you look at the extraordinary things that have taken place in the issue of cybersecurity. and the latest information, of course of 4 million people has got to get the attention of us. it has got to get the attention of the administration. we need to work together. i stand ready and i know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do. i stand ready to sit down and

let's come up with some policies and then implement those policies into ways of combating this new form of warfare that we call cyber. mr. president, again i anticipate the comments which i -- of my friend from illinois who will vigorously defend all of the research that's done in medical research. i want to point out again i am not in opposition to one single dime of any kind of medical research. i say it's coming out of the wrong place and you cannot make a logical argument that this belongs in the department of defense. some of it does. i have pointed that out. the majority of it belongs with other agencies. and when we are facing sequestration, when we are cutting our national security and our ability to the bone, according to our military leaders who have said that

continued sequestration puts the lives of the men and women who are serving in the military in danger we cannot afford another billion dollars to be spent on medical research. we want the money spent on medical research, we want it spent from the right place. mr. president, i look forward to addressing the remaining amendments with my colleague and friend from rhode island and hopefully we can wrap up the defense authorization bill by some time very soon so that we can move on to the conference and then bring the bill back after conference to the floor of the senate so we can carry out our first and most urgent responsibility and that is the security of the nation and the men and women who defend it. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president let me say at the outset the senator from arizona though we're of

opposite political faith, has been my friend and colleague for a long time, since we first were elected together in a class in the house of representatives. our friendship and relationship has had its peaks and valleys. i hope we're at a peak at this moment and i will concede before i say a word about his amendment that i have no question in my mind nor should anyone, about the commitment of the senator from arizona to the men and women who show extraordinary courage in battling for the united states of america in our military. the senator's own personal life is testament to his dedication to the united states military and i know he has brought that dedication to his service as armed services committee chairman. and bringing this authorization bill to the floor. and, secondly, i don't question his commitment to medical research either. as he said, when you reach a certain stage in life, you may value it more because you realize your own vulnerabilities

and the vulnerabilities of those that you love. so what i'm about to say is not a reflection on his commitment to the military nor his commitment to basic medical research. but i do question this amendment which senator mccain has said he will not offer but has filed and i have been prepared for several days now to debate. here's the question. should we have within the department of defense a medical research capacity? i think yes. i think for obvious reasons. because there are certain challenges to men and women who serve in our military and their families which relate to their military service. secondly if we're going to have such a military research program, should politicians and lobbyists, as the senator said, be able to pick the diseases and pick the research? no. of course not. and that's why this bill -- appropriation bill which we're going to consider later this week and this authorization bill address a situation where this

is done by competitive grant. in other words if you have researchers at some hospital that are researching a medical condition important to our military, you have to compete for it. it's not automatic. and the decision's not made by senators or congressmen. it is made by medical professionals about which research makes a difference. so i think medical research is important to our military. secondly politicians shouldn't pick and choose those researchers and research grants. they ought to be done by professionals. third, this undertaking in the department of defense is substantial. it's about $1.8 billion for all of the different medical research. in perspective the funding for the national institutes of health is about $30 billion. this is relatively small. dr. francis collins heads up the n.i.h. and i went to him and i

said doctor, i'm work on this medical research bill, i don't want to waste a penny. i don't want to duplicate anything you're doing at n.i.h. he said, trust me, we won't. we coordinate everything we do. what they do is complimentary to our work. what we do is complementary to their work. we're not wasting a penny. so those three things are i think the important starting points of this debate. medical research is important to national defense. politicians have no role in choosing who's going to do the medical research. and, third whatever we do is going to be coordinated with medical research at leading agencies like the national institutes of health. now, there are a lot of things on this list of research that i think very few people would ever quarrel with. should we have a joint war fighter medical account in research? should we have an orthotics and prosthetics research -- agency, i should say for those who have lost a limb in military service? how about a military burn research unit? when you go through wound care

research military dental research, all of these things relate to actual service. the only specifics which the senator from arizona raised questioning why the department of defense would get involved in research i'd like to address. the one that he specified was breast cancer. and it's true the second largest undertaking for breast cancer research in america takes place at the department of defense. it started there and i'll be honest, i remember why. it started there because the funding through the national institutes of health was not reliable predictable and the department of defense made a commitment we'll make our commitment to breast cancer research. well is there a reason why it would be in the department of defense? even though the senator from arizona has raised questions about it, i'd like to call his attention to the following. in 2013 researchers in the department of defense developed a vaccine that promises to protect women against a recurrence of breast cancer.

breast cancer is a disease diagnosed in female troops in a rate 20% to 40% higher than the civilian population. i'm a liberal arts lawyer. i don't know why. how could i figure out why more women in our military are diagnosed with breast cancer than women in our civilian population? i don't know the answer to that. but i want to know the answer to that. i want to know if there is something anything environmental or otherwise that our troops, and particularly women in the military, are exposes -- exposed to that makes it more likely for them to come down with a diagnosis of breast cancer. is that a legitimate question at the department of defense? it's obvious that it is. how good are these researchers? if we put several billion dollars in breast cancer research in the department of defense, the researchers recently completed a 10-year study of this vaccine known as e-75 tested on more than 100

female soldiers recovering from breast cancer and they had a similar test group of civilian women. the research is happening within the cancer vaccine development program at army research network studying vaccine potential to fight breast, ovarian uterine and prostate cancers. researchers indicated in the trials that the vaccine cut the risk that a woman's breast cancer will return in half. in half. is it worth it? is it worth it for us through the department of defense to put money into breast cancer research when refail troops have a -- female troops have a rate of breast cancer diagnosis 20% to 40% higher? when these researchers are finding a vaccine when in trials is cutting the recurrence of breast cancer in half compared to other populations? it seems very obvious to me. this is not the first time that the defense researchers in breast cancer have done

extraordinary things. in 1993, defense researchers developed herceptin now f.d.a. approved and one of the most widely used drugs to fight breast cancer. developed at the department of defense. do we want to take the research decisions away from the research ers? the amendment which the senator from arizona offers would give the secretary of defense the last word as to whether we do this research. now, i've known secretaries of defense. they're talented individuals. but when it comes to making medical decisions about medical research, i don't think any of them are qualified to do that. let's leave it in the hands of the professionals not in the hands of politicians not in the hands of political appointees not in the hands of bureaucrats. let me also say this. when you look at the list of diseases that are studied in the department of defense, some of them may sound odd. lou gehrig's disease a.l.s.?

why would we include that on a list for department of defense research? let me explain to you. men and women who have served in the u.s. military are 60% more likely than civilians to develop lou gehrig's disease. men and women who serve in the military. gulf war veterans twice as likely as the general population to develop lou gehrig's disease. should we invest money in the department of defense medical research on lou gehrig's disease and ask this basic question: why, why would it be more likely that you'd develop lou gehrig's disease if you serve in the u.s. military or if you were in the gulf war? mr. durbin: those are legitimate medical questions that relate to our military. and for the senator to offer an amendment to take out any of that type of research i think is the wrong thing to do. we don't have to tell you about the traumatic brain injury. everybody knows what happened. we've seen the returning veterans.

roadside bombs what they've gone through. between 48,000 and 169,000 -- 169,000 military service members who've served and are serving in iraq and afghanistan have developed post trauma i -- post-traumatic epilepsy, hd injuries. post-traumatic help i will say say -- post-traumatic epilepsy results from traumatic brain energy. i've got a grant in here on epilepsy and seizures. for this reason. $79 million. we have thousands who are dealing with these traumatic brain injuries and seizures and epilepsy afterwards. is this a legitimate area of department of defense research? absolutely. we cannot ignore the reality of what our troops have gone through and what they need when they come home. and to cut this research out would be a mistake. let me also say in 2013 alone

100,000 service members sought treatment for seizures at our veterans hospitals. it's a serious serious problem. mr. president, i could go through every single element here of medical research at the department of defense. i hope the examples i've given you illustrate that men and women who serve our country face medical challenges which the ordinary civilian population may not face. i think we have a special obligation to them to engage in the research that can make their lives whole again and give them a chance to come back from our military and have the happy and full life which we promised them. we said, if you'll hold up your hands, give an oath to america that you'll risk your life for our country we will stand by you when you come home. and that's more than a g.i. bill to go to school. it's more than a place to live. it's even more than basic medical care.

it involves medical research. the final point i want to make it this. this senator will never apologize for trying to come up with more money for medical research -- never. once every 67 seconds in america -- once every 67 seconds someone is diagnosed with alzheimer's in america. 67 seconds. when my staff told me that, i said you got to be wrong. they're not. once every 67 seconds. we spend $200 billion in medicare and medicaid on alzheimer's patients last year, not to mention the devastating cost to individual families who have someone they love suffering from this disease. we don't have an alzheimer's provision -- or we have a small alzheimer's provision in this particular medical research bill. am i going to stand here and apologize for putting $12 million in alzheimer's research? i will tell you if we can delay the onset of alzheimer's by one

month, by two months, by six months god-will, find a cure, we willwe would spare people from the pain and suffering they go through with this disease and spare theme families as well. when it comes to medical research, i will never apologize for putting money into medical research. any one of us who have had someone we love in our family facing a terrible, threatening scary diagnosis provide pray to god that there has been some area of research that may find a cure or a surgery. that's what this is about. i'm glad the senator is withdrawing his amendment. i repeat what i said at the outset. i will never ever question his commitment to our men and women in uniform nor do i question his commitment to medical research. what we're doing here has a direct impact on military

families and returning veterans. i would like to ask unanimous consent to add to the record three painls pages here of organizations that support my effort to stop this amendment. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: i have seven unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: thank you mr. president. and i too would like to speak on this national defense authorization act. and i object that we just i think had a very important exchange between the distinguished chairman of the armed services committee and the senator from illinois. they disagree on an amendment that will actually not be voted on but i was struck by the senator from illinois' remarks

and would observe to my colleagues that he has made a compelling case in favor of the bill which i appreciate and in favor of the proposition that the president of the united states should in fact sign this bill. so i appreciate my colleague from illinois pointing that out and i hope that people at the other end of pennsylvania avenue in the oval office even are listening to the stirring defense of the legislation from the senator from illinois. we are indeed moving in the right direction on this bill. i came to the floor last week to talk about the importance of this act. i re-miewndedi reminded my colleagues at the time that this has always been a bipartisan matter, for some 53 years. this senate, people who have come long before me have supported this particular bill

on a bipartisan basis and that is as it should be. i also disagreeed strongly in my remarks last week with the remarks of the distinguished minority leader, the senator from nevada, who said that taking up this bill w's a waste -- up this bill w's a waste was a waste of time because the president had stated his intention to veto the bill. i made the point at that time that the success of our nation's premier defense bill can never be a waste of time. taking care of the troops, taking care of the men and women who have stepped forward as volunteers can never be considered a waste of time. and i think really, more and more of our colleagues are coming around to that conclusion. we have made so much progress in the weeks we've been dealing with this. and i would re-mooned my colleagues that -- and i would

remind my colleagues that we started off in the armed services committee with a complete partisan divide. it was troubling at the time, but we've recovered from that. when we began consideration of of this bill in the senate armed services committee, we were told every republican would vote aye and every democrat would vote no. and that was definitely a concern to those of us who know this has to be bipartisan, that national security has got to be something that has the support from both sides of the aisle. as we worked through the process, as the distinguished ranking member, the senator from rhode island, worked with the chairman of the committee senator mccain we gained more and more support for this legislation in committee. and at the end of the day only four members of the entire committee voted no. so the vote was 22 in favor and only 4 opposed in the committee again moving in the right direction, and we get to the

floor last week and we hear the statements that this is a waste of time. i think we're -- i think we're moving away from that. and indeed yesterday we voted on cloture on the bill. now, i have in my hand a very, very i think encouraging vote of 83 senators in favor of this bill on a bipartisan -- of this motion for cloture 83 in favor and only 15 opposed. so at the beginning of my brief remarks today, i would just say that it is encouraging to me that both at the committee level and also on the senate floor we are getting to where the senate has always been on this bipartisan issue. and we certainly need to. we need to authorize the best tools available for our troops, the best training available for our troops, and our veterans, as the distinguished senator from illinois just pointed out are

in need of the support that this bill gives them. in addition, mr. president our veterans are ready for much-needed reforms to improve retirement and to improve military benefits. and, of course, we live in a very very unstable and insecure world, and we need this bill to meet the threats that are out there. we wish they weren't there. i wish that things were better in iraq. i wish that our hard-fought gains had not been tossed away by our precipitous withdrawal. but, in fact, the situation has worsened in iraq, and we need this bill to prk protect our interests there. we face old cold war tensions, with reasserting, aggressive russia in the form of president

putin. he is increasingly intent on restoring the soviet empire. we face other things, cyber threat. we need to reaffirm that the united states has a capable and strong u.s. defense. now, let me for a brief few moments come home to my state of mississippi and say why people in my state feel so strongly about this. of course we have military bases from north to south in mississippi. our own mississippians, like in all of our states, have stepped forward and are volunteering and are serving capably. but also we manufacture so many things in my state of mississippi that are important for national security. unmanned aerial vehicles -- we make them in mississippi. some of the finest ships in the world are made on the gulf coast of mississippi. helicopters, radars, and other

electronic warfare technology -- all of these are manufactured in my home state. and so for people in mississippi, i think this talk of this bill, these weeks on the floor being a waste of time do not ring true. a couple -- a few examples here. in my hometown of tupelo, mississippi, this bill recognizes the importance of the armies apache helicopters and the tupelo army aviation support facility. at columbus air force base where over 2,000 personnel serve this bill and the defense appropriations bill, which the gentlelady from maryland may speak about in a few moments these pieces of legislation allow our student pilots to have adequate training and adequate flying training hours.

in startville, mississippi the authorization of appropriations bills are integral to completing the army reserve center for equipping and training military earn he will. and along the gulf coast these defense bills the authorization and the appropriations bill, would support a new army national guard aviation depot at the gulfport biloxi airport, as well as the continued mission of over 11,000 americans who work at keisler air force base. i'm proud of these and i'm proud of what they do for our overall national defense of the united states. mississippi is just one of many states to take part in this. simply put mr. president our -- the future of our defense should not be put in jeopardy because of disagreements about unrealistic domestic funding

issues. we can get to those issues, but defending the united states of america -- something only the federal government can do; we can't devolve national security down to the states. we have to do it here in this building in this body, on this floor of the united states senate. and, besides i think it's well worth saying and reminding my colleagues that this bill gives the president every penny he has requested for national defense. it meets the $612 billion requested by president obama in his budget so it really should not be partisan at all. and i would go back to what the senator from illinois said. he made a stirring defense of this legislation. i think one that should be listened to by the president of

the united states. he should listen to the fact that we have an 83-15 vote on cloture much we had a 22-4 vote in the appropriations committee. we've had a few partisan flare-ups along the course of this legislation. but i think as we get to the end of the day, i am more and more encouraged about the process -- about the prospects of this bill. i think we can pass it tomorrow with an overwhelming vote, which shows that we are voting for it not as republicans not as democrats, but as americans because we want to defend the vital national interests of the united states of america. thank you mr. president. and i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: thank you very much mr. president. mr. president, standing here listening to the debate and discussion from colleagues on both sides of the aisle really makes the point that many of us

say: we need a new budget agreement here. we have people -- i think we all agree on both sides of the aisle. we need to defend america. there's no doubt about that. and in order to do that, we need to look at national security, both in its funding for the department of defense but where else we need to also be looking at what are the components to national security. many of the key agencies that are not in department of defense are also important to the national security, and yet, at the same time, we have defense with its budget gimmick -- and that's what it is; it is a budget gimmick to avoid the caps that we have on spending on both defense and discretionary spending. now, what this bill is is a gimmick to lift -- to have the money through something called

o.c.o., which was meant to be a specific -- it stands for overseas contingency funds. it was meant to deal with specific wars. now it's been plussed up by several millions and millions of dollars to avoid the budget caps. now, this isn't a budget debate here and i'll be saying more about it on the floor. but i just want to say to my colleagues think about national security. yes, we do need a strong national defense and we do need to support our troops, and we do need to support our military families. that's what i'm going to be elaborating on in a minute. but we also have to look at what are the other aspects. first of all, you need a state department. part of national security is diplomacy. you need a state department. second, in the state department, you need embassy security. if you don't want another benghazi you must put money in

the federal budget to make sure we have embassy security. you've got to fund the state department. that's in discretionary funding. you don't like the cyber attack? we're going to have meetings and we're going to hold hearings and hughhoorah all the things we should have been doing three to five years ago but were stopped 0en this senate floor because of concerns by the chamber of commerce that we would overregulate. we have a department of homeland security. it needs to be funded. it is in discretionary spending. you want to have a cybersecurity workforce? they need to be trained at our colleges and universities. you need a department of education with the pell grants and so on to be able to help our people get the jobs for the 21st century so they can do the type of work that we're talking about we need them to do here. i could go through other agencies. i'm not here to stand up for government agencies. i'm here to stand up for america. i'm here to say yes we do need

national security. we need to fund the department of defense but we need to fund those other agencies and programs that are intergallon to national -- that are integral to national security. that's why i think we need a new budget agreement along the lines of ryan-murray and we need to end sequester. i hope, and i call upon leadership on both sides of the aisle, but particularly on the other side of the aisle let's get to it now sooner rather than later. i'm the vice chair of the appropriations committee working very closely with the esteemed colleague the other senator, the senior senator from mississippi on trying to bring bills to the floor. but we simply have to come up with a new agreement. so we'll go through a lot of parliamentary motions but i'm not so sure we're going to get the locomotion we need to look out for america. we cannot let our military be hollowed out. we cannot let our country be hollowed out.

we need to really move ahead with this new agreement. and a perfect example sir mr. president, is why i come to the floor. all through this debate i've listened to the most important tool to a strong military is the military themselves. the military and their families. and consistent through all from both sides of the aisle is we must look out for our troops. well i couldn't agree with that more. yet, what is it that we know in in bill that tucked away is really an erosion of one of the key earned benefits that our military and their families and the retirees have? commissaries. commissaries. now, commissaries have been around since the 19th century. they have been around since 1826. military families have been able

to shop at networks of stores to provide modestly-priced goods primarily groceries to military families and to retirees. there are 246 of them, many in our own country many overseas. many in our country where they are the only place our military can go. there are those in some other countries where they're not even looked upon and welcomed in some of those countries even though we're there. what is in this bill? two things. one, let's privatize the commissaries. the other is let's cut their budget by $322 million. now, i am for saving in pentagon waste, but i will tell you no money is wasted at a commissary. in fact, just the opposite happens. military the commissaries are the most popular earned benefit

that the military have. and also -- and this isn't senator barb talking. this is coming from the military themselves. if you listen to the national military and veterans alliance, they say this: commissaries and exchanges are a vital part of pay and compensation. the military community greatly values these benefits. service families -- and their families have -- the proposed cuts they said would dismantle commissary benefits relied upon and also cost by shortening hours by reducing and raising prices. when we look at commissaries, we know that people shop there. they save money. and at the same time they are also a major source of employment. now, what i want to do is work with my colleague, the senator from oklahoma, a member of the

armed services committee senator jim inhofe. he and i -- and it's his amendment -- want to prevent -- present the -- prevent the privatization program. i have an additional amendment that cuts the commissaries. we have an offset to be able to pay for it as well. the benefits of the commissaries are significant. that's why i want these two amendments to be offered. they feed our troops. they help military families stretch their budgets. and they provide jobs to military spouses and military children old enough to work, and military retirees. the military families tell me that they get significant savings, sometimes as much as 30% on their bill. for a family of four, that could

be $4,500 per year. and you know what? as i said, 60% of the commissary workers are spouses are retirees at these commissaries. so d.o.d. says we want commissaries to be more self-sustaining. it has proposed cuts of more than $1 billion through 2020. they're talking about in fiscal year 2016 cutting $322 million. next year they want to cut $1 billion and they also want to look at how to privatize. now, joining with my colleague from oklahoma, the distinguished senior senator senator jim inhofe he has legislation to deal with the privatization. in this bill that's pending they implement this commissary pilot plan. well we've heard that before. i think it's a plan without a

pilot. but we don't even know if it's a good option. it was made up by pentagon bean counters pentagon bean slicers who were l told find savings so they went after the commissaries. well, the senator from oklahoma and i want to require the d.o.d. and g.a.o. to study the impacts of privatization before a plan can be implemented. in other words before you privatize, why don't you study the impact. the senator from oklahoma is proposing that this study be due in september so that we could be able to act appropriately in our appropriations and i support him in this amendment. and i also am looking for support in the cut to commissaries. right now proposed in both the authorization and they tried it in our appropriations bill to cut the appropriations by $322

million. this means it would cut hours. so instead of operating seven days a week, they would be open five. it would raise prices in many instances by as much as 25%. in far-flung places like hawaii or alaska, prices could even go up by as much as 50% because of the formula being used. mr. president, this just isn't right. of all the places that we can save money let's not go after commissaries. let's not go after commissaries. they help military families and retirees stretch their budget. for many of our young military, particularly the enlisted, the commissary is the place where they learn how to stretch their dollar. and at the same time it provides employment to military spouses in some instances military

children, and also to retirees. what is the problem here? we can't get votes on our amendments. we can't get a vote on the privatization issue proposed by the gentleman from oklahoma. and i can't get a vote on my amendment to restore the $322 million. now, i know that the leadership snowl meeting on how to wrap this bill up. well, i don't want to wrap this bill up; okay? i think that what we need to do is to be able to vote on these two amendments. we've had all kinds of amendments like we had one on the sage-grouse. i know the sage-grouse is a protected species. as an appropriator, i had to deal with this as a rider on the appropriations. so i'm not against the sage-grouse. i'm not against talking about the sage-grouse. but why in all of the problems

facing america do we need a sage-grouse amendment on defense when i can't get a vote on protecting commissaries, protecting an earned benefit of our military, helping them stretch their dollar, making sure some of them have a chance to work on a military base. why can't i get an amendment? why can't the distinguished senator from oklahoma get a vote on his amendment that would call for a halt to the privatization pilot until we get a study from g.a.o. on impact. so you can stand up for the sage-grouse, but i tell you i'm standing up for military families. so i urge the leadership at the highest level and the leadership l moving this authorization to give the inhofe-mikulski antiprivatization of commissaries a vote and give me a chance to offer my amendment. let the senate decide. let's not have me stopped and stymied because of parliamentary

procedure. you might say and to everybody listening, well, barbara you're pretty outspoken. you're not shy. why can't you offer your amendment? under the rules of the body that we're now operating i've got to get consent. that means all 99 other senators shouldn't object to i'll be offering an amendment. i'm stuck. what i need is for the leadership to give me the consent to at least have my amendment discussed and debated in the light of the day. and i want to hear their justification on why they have to go after commissaries. let's stand united. let's get a new budget agreement. let me offer my amendment. we shouldn't be fighting with each other over these things. instead of going after commissaries let's go after the bad guys in the world and let's do it in a united way. mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: would the senator withhold.

ms. mikulski: mr. president i withdraw my request for a quorum. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: thank you mr. president. i rise today to mark the third anniversary of the deferred action for childhood arrivals program which was this week. since 2012, the program that the president implemented which has been known as daca has offered temporary relief from deportation to immigrants who arrive to the united states as young children. and it's helped almost 665,000 young people since june of 2012, including more than 10,000 in virginia. the daca program announced by the president has allowed young people to contribute to our communities, live without constant fear of deposhtation -- deportation, keep families together and provide economic and educational c opportunities for these recipients. i want to thank president obama and the administration because

daca p provided relief to thousands of youngsters who seek only to seek opportunity provide for their families and contribute to the only places that they've ever known as home, is the united states. immigrants aren't the only ones who benefit. daca enforces the universal reputation of this country that we're proud of that we value our illegal immigrant heritage and embrace and celebrate their contributions to american history, industry and culture. and, mr. president, this is a value that is something that we feel very deeply in virginia, and we feel it more every day. when i was born in 1958, one out of 100 virginians had been born in another country. today in 2015, one out of nine virginians was born in another country. and that period coincides with the moving of the virginia economy from bottom quarter per capita income to top quarter. immigration and the contributions of immigrants to our state has been tremendously positive. there are 10,000 youngsters in

virginia, more than 10,000 benefited by daca. we're 13th among all states. let me tell you two quick states. haroth androtti exemplifies what he can give back to his community. brought from bolivia brought by adults, she arrived without her parents. she it excelled in school, attended washington lee high school in washington. she took advanced placement international baccalaureate classes. during a campus visit she learned for the first time her undocumented status would be a barrier to earning a college education. instead of giving up on her dream she organized with other students to form dreamers of virginia, an organization that led efforts to provide students access to in-state tuition and college admission for kids just like her. after the president announced the daca program in june of 2012 hareth became a recipient and transferred from community college to trinity washington

university where she expects to graduate with a degree in international relations next year. another student just one more story, jung been sho has seen doors open to him because of daca. cho arrived in the united states with his parents from south korea when he was seven years old. he attended elementary school, graduated high school in springfield, virginia and played on the defensive line for the football team. his dream -- a lot of virginians have this dream -- was attending virginia tech and he gained admission to the school. but at that time he first realized that his undocumented status eliminated him from in-state tuition or any financial aid. because he couldn't afford it, he attended community college and worked two jobs to support himself. but following daca and the decision last year to grant in-state tuition to young virginians, a decision for which i applaud our governor and general assembly, cho reapplied

to virginia tech, won admission and he now is able to attend virginia tech where he will pursue a degree in business and hopefully participate in this great expansion of the virginia economy that so many of our immigrants have been proud to -- to lead. for young people like cho daca makes sense. both came here as young children. they didn't come here on their own volition, they were brought here. they only know virginia as home and they seek to study work and build a life in this country as proud virginians. they want to return the opportunities afforded to them by using their talents to improve their communities and make it a better place for everybody. in addition to this humanitarian aspect as you've heard these talented students are the kinds of people who accelerate our economy, daca is good for our economy too. so i strongly support its continuation but i also want to just encourage my colleagues that and i think we all agree on this -- democrat, republican, independent -- we all agree on this this program works best not by executive order but by

legislation. we are now almost exactly two years from the date when the senate passed comprehensive immigration reform right here on this fliewr in june of 2013, two years where after a strong bipartisan effort demanded for action, any action, by the house not just taking up our bill but doing their own bill and in a conference finding a compromise, which we can do. it's time that the house act. it's time that the senate and house sit down together and do comprehensive immigration reform. we can give dreamers and millions of other families who continue to live in the shadows an earned pathway to citizenship. it's time to pass that reform. it's in the best traditions of our nation and in the best valued traditions of my commonwealth that we do so. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, after the senate concludes its work on the defense authorization bill

tomorrow a very important part of our responsibility, we will then move to consider the defense appropriations act. this actually is the legislation that will pay the bills for the department of defense and to make sure that our men and women in uniform get the resources they need in order to do their job not to mention their pay. which is why it is so disturbing to see the leadership of our minority in the senate announce in the papers here in washington that they were going -- they are going to begin what they call a filibuster summer. filibuster summer. in other words they're going to use the power they have as the minority to block important funding bills beginning with the bill that pays for our national security. in what can only be called a cheap political stunt. why they've decided to do that

on this important defense appropriation bill is, frankly beyond me. i think i understand what their general point is, which is they don't think that the federal government spends enough money and so they want to spend more money and they have no concern whatsoever for fact that under -- under this administration, we've raised the national debt by trillions of dollars making sure that my generation will not end up having to pay that money back but the next generation will unless we meet our responsibilities. so for them to pull this kind of political stunt and say, you know what, we're not spending enough money we're not incurring enough debt and so we're going to force a filibuster on the defense appropriation bill in order to extort more spending, more debt more irresponsibility. the bill our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are

pledging to filibuster is not controversial in itself because it would as i said, provide for our military and would help our troops maintain their status as the greatest military in the world. and it also includes simple initiatives that make a lot of sense and serve our troops well, like giving the men and women who wear the uniform a modest pay raise. and yet the democratic leader still plans to block this legislation and stymie this chamber's efforts to fund our troops. you know, we saw a little glimpse of this this last week when senate democrats with the exception of seven blocked us moving an amendment that -- to deal with cybersecurity. you know, we saw their timing could not have been worse because of course then it was announced that millions of records at the office of

personnel management had been hacked by the chinese government and some of the most sensitive security clearance background records were now in their hands. a dramatic act of counterintelligence and espionage. and then when we offered an amendment to the defense authorization bill that would deal with cybersecurity would allow more information sharing would allow lawsuit protection for those who -- who shared information in order to protect the privacy and the information of american citizens, it was blocked by all but seven democrats on the other side. so while i have been by and large encouraged by this new congress and what we've been able to accomplish together in a bipartisan way, i think there's some very troubling signs on the horizon starting with this

ill-considered idea of filibuster summer, throwing a temper tantrum until you can get more money that we don't have to spend on your pet projects. but i think their decision to hold the defense appropriation bill hostage is just inexcusable this is the essential funding for our military for national security. and i should point out as my colleagues across the aisle use this bill to leverage to spend more taxpayer dollars on things like the i.r.s. not long ago though, they vocally opposed the obstructionist tactics that they're now employing. so here are the words of the democratic leader senator harry reid in 2013. he said, "it's time to get back to setting fiscal policy through

the regular order of the budget process rather than through hostage taking." i agree with his comments then and i wish he would act consistently with those words today. the american people aren't served well by these kinds of manufactured crises and threats to cut off funding for our troops, and that's why the new republican senate under majority leader mcconnell has prioritized and restored the kind of regular order that senator reid talked about in 2013 and finallily congress -- and finally the congress and the senate is actually getting back to work on a bipartisan basis. as i said, we've had some signs of progress. i know majority leader mcconnell likes to quote woody hayes from ohio state when he talked about the nature of the progress we made. he said, three yards and a --

and a whirlwind of dirt -- or dust. that's not exactly the quote. i'd like to think of it more of a baseball analogy of singles and an occasional double. we have -- i remember what it was. he said, it's three yards and a cloud of dust. that's what i was trying to remember. but you get the basic point. we're actually beginning to make some progress, and that's why i find so troubling these signs of filibuster summer and this announcement by our democratic friends. we have done our best after this last election, after the american people entrusted us with the majority of the house and the senate to deliver on our promises. we've held more roll call votes on amendments in the past five months than the minority leader, as the democratic allowed in an entire year when they were under control. more roll call votes on amendments in the last five months than democrats allowed in

an entire year when they were in control. and, you you know, the truth is, our democratic colleagues i think like it better too because not only was the minority, republicans shut out when senator reid was majority leader he shut out members of his own party the majority party. now, how you explain that back home i'm just -- i'm not too clear. but it's not just senator reid who's made this commitment to restoring regular order and he is -- eskewing this idea of hostage taking, which is what they're talking about doing. here's comments from another of their leadership, the senator from washington, senator murray. she said in 2013, "the american people had no more patient for politicians holding the economy and the federal government hostage to extract concessions or score political points." i agree with her. i agree with senator reid in 2013.

but these are the exact same democratic leaders who are now today threatening the same sort of hostage taking that they condemned in 2013. well, i'd like to point out that the legislation we're considering, the defense appropriation bill, is not a partisan bill. in fact, it was voted out of committee last week by a vote of 27-3. 27-3. this is not a partisan bill, so why they should decide to hold this hostage is beyond me. all but three democrats supported the defense spending measure in committee last week but unfortunately and defying logic, some democrats have publicly admitted to supporting the text of the bill while vowing to do everything they could to keep it from advancing on the floor of the senate. just one example is the junior

senator from connecticut who hailed the bill's passage. this is the defense appropriations bill, in committee, he hailed the bill's passage through the committee as a -- quote -- "victory for connecticut." i'm sure there was a press release to go along with that back home. only to go on and say that he would go along with the ill-fated strategy to vote "no" to block the bill from actually being considered on the floor. the american people are pretty smart and they can see hypocrisy, they can identify hypocrisy when they see it. and when a senator says, i'm going to vote for the bill in committee but i'm going to vote against it on the floor because that's what my leadership tells me i have to do in order to extract more spending and impose more debt on the american people and future generations the american people get it. once it's pointed out to them.

so this is all about gamesmanship. this is not about responsible legislating, and it's not why the american people sent us here. so i can only hope, being the optimist that i am, that our colleagues on the other side will reconsider this stated strategy of filibuster summer. what a mistake that is. what an unsustainable position when they have to go back home over the 4th of july and tell the veterans, tell the active-duty military in their state yeah, i voted to kill the bill that would pay your salary or provide you the tools you need in order to succeed in your commitment to keeping america safe. i just don't know how you sustain that position. so i'd encourage our colleagues

from across the aisle to remember that filibuster summer is a bad idea and it's not good for the american people and it sends irresponsibility signals to our troops that some members of the senate are not fully behind them. so let's continue to work productively. we've done it on hard pieces of legislation most recently on the trade legislation that we passed out of the senate with a strong bipartisan vote. let's continue to work together productively in a way that serves the american people and not resort to the sort of political maneuvers that i don't think reflect well on us and on the senate as an institution but more fundamentally undermine the men and women who wear the uniform of the united states military. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i'd suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be dispensed with. the. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you mr. president. and i rise today to acknowledge the third anniversary of the deferred action for childhood arrivals the daca program as many of my colleagues have over the past few days. the daca program was created because our government faced an impractical mandate to deport hundreds of thousands of undocumented children who pose no risk to society. and congress, thus far, has been unable to solve the problems, despite the very good, bipartisan efforts that occurred in this body back in 2013. but we've been unable to pass

any meaningfulhumemigration real estate form -- any meaningful immigration reform. why? well a group from the far right in the house of representatives oppose immigration reform at all costs and have sort of tied speaker boehner in a knot so he can't bring anything to the floor. so three years ago with no choice, president obama moved forward on his own to shield children who were brought to this country through no fault of their own. they were brought by their parents when they were very young, almost all of them, children who have lived here for many years and know no other country as their home, children who are dreaming of getting a college degree in america. the president created daca, a temporary program modeled on the dream act, which is a vital component of comprehensive immigration reform. and, as i said, we couldn't get immigration real estateimmigration reform, and i'm still hopeful that could happen

at some point in time. doing what the president did was the main and practical thing to do because the house couldn't do anything. and what choice was there? leave these kids, through no fault of their own in limbo? that was not the right thing to do. we hope that this is a policy that congress will implement into law at some point but right now, of course, again as i mentioned the house is hog hogtied. the daca program has deferred deportations for nearly half a million dreamers. nearly 40,000 have been approved for daca in new york. one is kersi martinez. she came to us from the dough dominican republic in 2002, attended high school in new york city. after graduate, she lived in the shadows working small jobs here and there whatever she could do to make ends meet. she was a good student coming

out of high school. she even had a few scholarship offers but couldn't attend college because she didn't have a green card and didn't have the means a ford a college education -- to afford a college education. but in 2012 she was one of the first to sign up for daca, with her new temporary legal status, she was able to roll -- enroll in bronx community college. she got loans to pay for her first semester. she had to drop out once the loans ran out. she scrapped together more funding from the dream u.s. scholarship that provides tuition assistance to dreamers at schools. now kersi is 26 years old. i met her at her graduation at bronx community college. she was co-valedictorian of her class, with a perfect 4.0 0 average. these are the kind of kids we're talking about mr. president. they want to be americans they want to get out of the shad dorks they within to live productive full lives.

they don't want a handout. they want to be able to be on their own. that's what kersid i met her and i was so proud of her. she has realized the dreamers' dream. bows f because of both her hard work and the president's daca program which helped bring her out of the shadows. there are many, many more around the country just like her. but the sad truth is that instead of harnessing the potential and the contributions she is young people could make -- these young people could make instead of welcoming them as full-fledge members of our society shall the republican majority in the house of representatives voted to repeal the daca program. with these votes house republicans have made it clear. they want to deport these dreamers. many of the dreamers have a sibling who may have been born here in the u.s. and is a citizen of the u.s. or a parent who may have a green card. house republicans have no qualms about tearing these families apart.

they have no qualms what it could cost us as a young -- as a nation to lose these young people. if you look at workforce in america, it's different than europe in that we do have enough yupg people who want to -- young people who want to work to help support those in re-stiermt or on disability. but not if our house republicans have their way. in my home state dreamers like kersi are doing amazing thing studying medicine, working at start-up tech companies and more. if republicans in the house had their way these talented people would be putting their skills to use to compete against us rather than working to make america stronger. like the millions who came here before them, like your ancestors, mr. president and my ancestors, they came here because they wanted to be americans, not because they wanted to get a benefit not because they wanted to be a leach on society. they wanted to be a full, -- a

full-fledged productive member of the society. somehow these kids in the house -- i don't even know if they no who these kids are -- want to stop that from happening. as we remember this anniversary we should remember the real human stories behind the daca program and think how our nation could be made better by sensible immigration reform now. thank you mr. president. and i yield the floor. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president i rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing june as national alzheimer's and brain awareness month. every 67 seconds someone in our country develops alzheimer's disease. it is the sixth-leading cause of death in the united states, yet it is the only disease in the top 10 that cannot yet be

prevented, cured or slowed. of the 5.3 million americans with alzheimer's disease 5.1 million are 65 and older accounting for 96% of the diagnosed population. by 2050, the number of people 65 and older with alzheimer's disease may nearly triple from 5.1 million to an estimated 13.8 million americans. the disease will take the lives of an estimated 700,000 seniors in the united states this year, and that number is rapidly rising. while deaths from other major causes have decreased in this country, deaths from alzheimer's disease has increased significantly. between 2000 and 2013, deaths attributed to alzheimer's disease increased 71% while deaths attributed to heart disease, the number-one cause of death in the united states,

decreased by 14%. the devastating disease is also one of our country's most expensive diseases. nearly one in every five medicare dollars is spent on people with alzheimer's and other did he men sha's. -- did i men sha's. -- dementias. we cannot afford to overlook alzheimer's disease both the human costs and the cost to our health care system are simply too great. we must invest more in research to develop treatments to prevent or delay the progression of alzheimer's disease and ultimately to find a cure. of all the statistics and data regarding alzheimer's disease perhaps the most up-setting is the immense gap between the amount we spend on alzheimer's research and the cost of caring for those with the alzheimer's disease. in 2014, the total cost of

alzheimer's was $214 billion including $150 billion to medicare and medicaid. during the same year, the national institutes of health invests only one-quarter of 1% of that amount, $566 million in alzheimer's research. this year cancer research will be allocated and estimated at $5.4 billion in federal funds. and heart disease will get $1.2 billion, while alzheimer's and other dementias will receive a fraction of that of $586 million. simply put it's imperative that we provide n.i.h. with robust, sustained funding which will allow us to support alzheimer's research that is so desperately needed. mr. president, let me make it clear. i strongly support the research dollars going into cancer and would like to see more funds put into it. i strongly support the amount of funds we're putting into heart

disease and would like to see more funds put in. i know there's bipartisan support in this congress to increase the pie that n.i.h. has, the funds that n.i.h. has because we understand it advances the humanitarian need in our country to find the answers to diseases but also creates good jobs. we need to dramatically increase the amount of resources that we make available for alzheimer's research. we must also support innovative evidence-based models to address the needs of those currently living with alzheimer's disease and their family caregivers. i am proud to tell you about the maximizing independence at home -- or mind at home -- program developed at johns hopkins in my own home state. an interdisciplinary team provides assessments and support to individuals with alzheimer's disease and other dementias allowing them to remain in their

home longer, improving their quality of life and supporting their family caregivers. during an 18-month pilot project, the mind at home program helped participants stay safely in their homes for an average of 9.5 months longer than would have been otherwise possible while also improving their quality of life. we have an opportunity to improve the lives of millions of americans suffering from alzheimer's and the lives of their family members by building on the success of programs like mind at home. this june in honor of national alzheimer's and brain awareness month, let us pledge to provide robust sustained funding for n.i.h. so it can support much-needed research on the -- this devastating disease and let us pledge to support innovative programs like mind at home to improve the quality of life of those currently living with alzheimer's and their family caregivers. with that, mr. president, i

would yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. white housemr. whitehouse: thank you mr. president. today is my 103rd time coming to the floor to ask my colleagues to wake up to the urgent challenge of climate change. pretty much everyone is telling us that clj is a climate change is a problem. first of all, there are the scientists. virtually every major scientific society and agency. then there are our military and national security leaders. leading american companies. doctors. and faith leaders. all telling us that this is a problem and asking us to wake up.

the american people understand that climate change is real. nearly 80% think that doing nothing to reduce future warming will cause a very or somewhat serious problem for the united states. two-thirds of americans including half of republicans favor government action to reduce global warming and two-thirds including half of republicans, would be more likely to vote for a candidate who campaigns on fighting climate change. i myself have visited with voters in early primary states, with people in iowa and new hampshire, in south carolina, business owners, teachers, community leaders elected officials. i can tell you, there will be no avoiding this issue in the 2016 election.

so you might expect republican presidential hopefuls to present to the voters their plans for climate action. you might expect the republican candidates to address this problem in an honest and straightforward manner. but you would be wrong. republican presidential candidates who venerate our military turn deaf when that military warns of climate change s national security dangers. republican presidential candidates who are conspicuously religious ignore pope francis and other religious leaders when they warn of the fundamental indecency of not addressing climate change. republican presidential candidates who seek to represent our corporate elite ignore those corporations own business case

for addressing climate change. and republican candidates who root boisterously for their home state university sports teams ignore the climate change warnings of scientists and researchers at those very same universities. the republican presidential primary is a festival of climate denial with candidates competing to tie themselves in knots to avoid acknowledging carbon pollution. a few even subscribe to the big hoax theory. one candidate wrote in his book that climate science is based on -- quote -- "doctored data" and that -- quote -- "it's all one contrived, phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight." end of quote. another even claims to know

who's behind the hoax. he said, "the concept of global warming was created by and for the chinese in order to make u.s. manufacturing noncompetitive." wow, he got to the bottom of that huh? this very of expensive global warming -- i'll delete the words since this is the senate floor -- has got to stop. our planet is freezing, the same candidate wrote last winter. then there is the "who knows" caucus. one republican hopeful seems to think we don't really know one way or the other. we may be warming we may be cooling, he says. another has said that people who are concerned about climate change don't like to look at the actual facts and data. now, there's a really perverse piece of rhetoric because what do the actual facts and data

show? the data show that the amount of carbon in the earth's atmosphere has risen dramatically since the onset of the industrial revolution just over a century ago. to the highest levels mankind has ever experienced and the highest levels earth has experienced in at least 800,000 years. it is a fact of basic science that carbon dioxide traps heat and alters the climate. that has been known since the days of president abraham lincoln. the data match and show decades of increase in global temperature. the scientists we pay to know these things say that warming of the climate is -- quote -- "unequivocal. the ocean is warming. sea levels are rising.

ocean water is growing more acidic. we measure all of that. it is not theory. those are the facts. at least two candidates, by the way, have compared those who accept the established science of climate change to people who believe the earth is flat. that's particularly rich when you consider that nasa scientists are among the strongest and most articulate proponents of the science of climate change. do you really think that nasa scientists believe the world is flat? do you think the scientists who launched a rover through space landed it safely on the surface of mars and are now driving it around are confused about the circular nature of the earth?

then there is the always-changing crowd. one republican presidential hopeful says the climate is changing, i don't think the science is clear on what percentage is manmade. and for the people to say the science is decided on this is just really arrogant. actually it's just really factual. there's never been a moment where the climate is not changing another candidate observed. the question is what percent of that is due to human activity? well the link of climate change to human activity is something that scientists have studied extraordinarily closely. according to the leading scientific body on climate change the best estimate is that pretty much all of the recent rise was due to human activity. the lead scientific organization says greenhouse gas emissions along with with other human activity -- quote -- "are

extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid 20th century." end quote. and, by the way extremely likely is defined in that document as 95% to 100% certainty. so this gaggle of republican presidential hopefuls is willing to take the worst than one in 20 bet that human activity is not the dominant cause of recent climate change. or as another republican candidate put it, the conclusions you make from that are not conclusive whatever that means. then, of course, there is "i'm not a scientist." at least three of the declared republican candidates have used that line.

imagine if congress answered other policy questions that way. what's your position on abortion? oh i'm not a gynecologist. what should we do about health care? oh i'm not a medical doctor. we're not expected to be experts. we're expected to listen to the experts and to make conscientious informed and prudent decisions. and, oh, are we failing that test. there are even republican candidates for president who in this american century would abdicate american leadership on the climate crisis. is there anything the united states can do about it, one of the republican candidates asked? clearly no. reducing u.s. greenhouse gas emissions will have zero impact, he said, on climate change. another candidate said a single nation acting alone can make no

difference at all. i would love to hear winston churchill and franklin roosevelt conversing about whether america can make a difference. last week the senior senator from oklahoma, whose skepticism about climate change is well documented was the keynote speaker at the climate denial conference of a creepy outfit called the heartland institute. here is what he told them. and by the way when i say creepy, they are the group that put up a billboard comparing climate scientists to the unabomber. pretty responsible stuff. if you look at the republican candidates, he assured the attendees at that forum they're all denying this stuff, with the exception of lindsey graham. they're all with the people in this room.

quite a room to want to be with. i am glad that our colleague from south carolina, senator graham, has called for reducing carbon pollution with smart probusiness policies. he has lit a path for other republican colleagues to follow, and he's not the only one on this path. prominent conservative thinkers and former administration officials from nixon reagan, and both bush administrations have voiced support for putting a fee on carbon emissions. prominent be -- prominent conservatives and libertarians think that we can put a price on carbon relieve taxes on profits and work and come out economically for the better, even setting aside the environmental and climate benefit just economically that that is a win.

so i offered a carbon fee bill last week with our colleague senator schatz, as what one conservative called an olive limb doing better than just an olive branch. as an olive limb to conservatives who are ready to address this problem. so lindsey graham has articulated one path. there is a different darker path. that's the path of obedience to fossil fuel interests. the fossil fuel companies and that i were super pac allies and their front groups swing a heavy financial club and they want to herd republican candidates down the darker path. americans for prosperity, part

of the koch brothers-backed political machine plans on spending $900 million in the 2016 election cycle. $900 million. and its president tim phillips threatened publicly that any republican candidate in the 2016 presidential who supported climate action -- and i quote -- "would be at a severe disadvantage in the republican nomination process." gee, what might candidates conclude from that? and that's just one part of the fossil fuel political machine. so i ask myself why all those

preposterous statements by the republican presidential candidates? and the only conclusion i can reach is to signal that very obedience. we are now at the stage in the republican presidential primary where candidates caper and grovel before the fossil fuel industry's political machine hoping -- hoping -- that they will be the chosen beneficiaries of fossil fuel election spending. remember $900 million from just one group. it looks like that earns the industry a lot of graveling and capering. eventually -- eventually -- the republican party is going to have to find its true voice on climate change.

it can't continue indefinitely as the political arm of the fossil fuel industry in environment in which 80% of americans want climate action and a majority of young convince think that climate denial is ignorant, out of touch or crazy according to words they selected in the poll. ultimately the republican party is going to have to find its true voice. but until then, america is presented the unseemly spectacle of republican presidential candidates fighting to have the best position on climate change money can buy. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

"i i

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask that the

quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president i come to the floor again to speak about iran. as we count down to the deadline for an agreement about iran's illusiveness when it comes to the military dimensions of their program and how they will respond to that in any agreement. and the truth as it has always been is illusive and it remains so. yesterday secretary of state kerry said in response to a question about whether or not iran's atomic work by the military by the iranian military would have to be resolved before sanctions would be lifted, the secretary said that we're not fixated on iran specifically accounting for what they did at one point or another. what we're concerned about is going forward.

well mr. president given iran's history of deception, i am very concerned about what they did at one point or another. in an iran task force memo on verification it says that -- quote -- "until iran provides a full accounting of its past and present possible military dimension activities, the international community cannot have confidence that it knows either how far iran is along the path to nuclear weapons or that iran's nuclear weapons activities have effectively ceased." david albright, who i've called many times when i was a chairman and still has come before the senate foreign relations committee, the founder of the institute for science and international security, said the secretary's remarks were -- quote -- "very worrisome. he said they reflect the administration's long-standing practice of offering concessions

to iran. and he said -- and i quote -- " whenever confronted with iranian intransigence they fold. it's going to be hard for a lot of people to support this deal if they give in on past military dimensions." he has always said addressing the international atomic energy administration's concerns about the military dimensions of iran's nuclear programs is fundamental fundamental to any long-term agreement. an agreement that side steps the military issues would risk being unverifiable. moreover the world would not be so concerned if iran had never conducted weaponization activities aimed at building a nuclear weapon. the former deputy director general of the international atomic energy administration has

said -- quote -- "without addressing those questions speaking of the possible military dimensions of iran's program, the iaea secretary will not be able to come to a conclusion that all nuclear material in iran is for peaceful use, which is essential in building confidence of the international community over iran's nuclear program. a comprehensive deal that would include uranium enrichment can only be reached if uncertainties over iran's military capability are addressed. that should be an unambiguous condition to achieving a final accord that is meaningful in safeguard terms. now, this is the former deputy general of the international atomic energy administration who overwhelmingly under the proposed agreements saying this is the entity that will be responsible for the verification

of any potential agreement. well his experience says that without understanding the weaponization elements of iran's program, you can't fully be able to do that. he also warned that outsiders really can have no idea where and how fast the mullahs could build a nuclear weapon unless they know what iranian engineers have done in the past. and as to secretary kerry's assertion yesterday that we know what their program was and he said it, as i read it, almost as unequivocal, we know what their program was. well i get concerned when i read the former director of the c.i.a. general michael maden who has said -- quote -- "not addressing the possible military dimensions creates an increased burden on verification. if i don't have high confidence in where the iranians actually are, not such as emphasis i'll

material -- fissile development program as in the program. we do have intelligence estimates but they remain estimates. they remain estimates. for a country that says that is not our objective they refuse to come clean on their pasts. how can we know their intent, how can we we know their capacity for breakout or sneakout with high confidence with where it is -- without knowing where it is they are right now? he also said with reference to secretary kerry's remarks i'd like to see the d.n.i. or any intelligence office repeat that for me. they won't. what he is saying is that we don't care how far they've gotten with weaponization. we're betting the farm on our ability to limit the production of fissile material. he's pretending we have perfect knowledge about smog that was an

incredibly tough intelligence target when i was director and i see nothing that has made it any easier. this is the former director of the c.i.a., supposedly where we have all this knowledge. this is his expression of what we have or don't have. and clearly basically what he's saying is we have estimates but they are just that, estimates. so mr. president i'm concerned, very concerned when the secretary of state says we are prepared to ease sanctions on iran without fully understanding how far iran progressed on its secret nuclear weapons program. it has been a fundamental question from the very beginning of these negotiations, it was made very clear in testimony before the senate foreign relations committee and other venues where members asked about would iran have to come clean on its possible dimensions of its militarization of its weapons

program, and would that have to be up front. and that was always an understanding, almost like a red line. now, that seems to be erased. it has been a fundamental question to which we need, not just want, a full and verifiable answer. and this is not just about iran making some admission. that's beyond us. i think the world pretty much has acted the way it has acted in the sanctions of the security council and elsewhere because it knows that iran was pursuing weaponization of its nuclear program. it's just that we don't know how far they got in that process and how far they got of that process is important to know as you are determining the other elements of any agreement particularly with breakout. and that has been the case as long as i have been working to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. now the secretary of state says

that we are prepared to ease economic sanctions without a full and comprehensive answer to that question. he says that iran's past suspected nuclear activities need to be addressed. that's all simply addressed not specifically answered, but only addressed. now, according to the "new york times" article that i read, he made it clear that sanctions could be lifted, they could be lifted before definitively resolving concerns about the international atomic energy agency about iran's past nuclear research and the extent of the military dimensions of that research. that mr. president is simply unacceptable. in my view, and it should be unacceptable to everyone in this chamber. you know, "the new york times" article goes on to say and i quote -- "those favoring full disclosure of what diplomats have delicately called the

possible military dimensions of iran's nuclear research say that the west will never know exactly how long it would take iran to manufacture a weapon if it ever developed or obtained bomb-grade uranium or plutonium unless there is a full picture of its success and suspected experiments to design the detonation systems for a weapon and learn how to shrink it to fit atop a missile." that's exactly what i believe mr. president, and i came to the floor and had a map that described where the possible reach of iran's present missile technology exists, and it's most of the gulf into parts of eastern europe, turkey, egypt and of course our ally, the state of israel. so it's reached today under missile capacity, and something that they continue to perfect is

incredibly significant. for a decade since obtaining data from an iran scientist on a laptop that was spirited out of the country the c.i.a. and israel have given enormous energy to understanding the scope of the program. failing to require disclosure would also undercut the atomic agency a quiet signal to other countries that they, too, could be given a path. that's further from the "times" article. well those are exactly my continuing concerns, and i think they are concerns of a very large universe who have been following theeg developments. i need to know the answer to those questions before i can support any lifting of sanctions against iran that i have fought for, authored and that the senate has unanimously supported. so mr. president, i am going to conclude but i will be back to point out the unfolding problems

dealing with the mullahs in tehran what it means to the national security of the united states and to our allies in the middle east and to the stability of the region and to what i am increasingly concerned is the moving of goal posts that move increasingly in the direction of iran. i remember when we started off this conversation, these negotiations iraq, the plutonium reactor. we were told they will dismantle it or we will destroy it. well this agreement allows iraq to continue, reconfigured somewhat but it can be reconfigured back. the president himself has said that there was no need for fordo. deeply built under a mountain facility. if you want a peaceful nuclear facility program you don't go

deeply into a mountain to ultimately do enrichment, but that's what the iranians did. the president himself said that was an unnecessary facility. we were told it was going to be closed. well it's going to stay open. reconfigured to produce less uranium and supposedly with safeguards but it's going to stay open. the point is the weaponization elements, that was -- iran has for a decade, a decade worked against the u.n. security council resolutions that said it had to come clean on this question and so if for a decade they haven't done it, when you have the leverage, why wouldn't you seek to achieve it now so you know and can calculate the rest of your agreement? that too seems to be being lost in the shifting sands of these negotiations. this is of deep concern to me, and i can only hope that we will end up at a better deal than that which is being unfolded as we speak. every time i listen to another

element of what i thought was a critical element of any deal, that critical element seems to largely be moving in the direction of what iran wants to see and not what we in the international community should want to see and that's my concern, mr. president and i'll continue to come forward and voice it. and with that, i observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schatz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: mr. president i ask unanimous consent to vacate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schatz: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schatz: mr. president the facts are undeniable. climate change is real. it's caused by humans. it's happening now and it's solvable. one solution to climate change is putting a fair price on carbon pollution. last week, senator whitehouse and i introduced a bill, s. 1548 to do just that and to return all of the revenue to american families and businesses. i want to thank senator whitehouse for his leadership on this bill, but we want a republican dance partner. we want conservative leadership on this great challenge of our time. climate change increases the severity and frequency of storms and natural disasters.

this is not only a humanitarian problem but also an economic issue. a heat wave in texas in 2011, for example caused $5 billion in livestock and crop losses. climate change makes events like this 20 times more likely to occur today than in the 196 1990's. climate change's impact on the economy is particularly damaging because it creates so much uncertainty. there is a role for the government here. the administration is doing everything that it can to reduce carbon pollution within the statutory constraints of the clean air act but it won't get us to the reductions that we need. congress needs to step in and legislate to get the reductions that we need to make sure that we're protecting low-income and working families and growing our economy. regulations like the clean power plant and power mechanisms like a price on carbon are not

mutually exclusive. in fact, they work together. they are mutually reinforcing. if power plants reduce emissions under the clean power plan, they will pay less in carbon fees. market mechanisms for reducing pollution work. in the 1990's, president george h.w. bush used cap-and-trade to reduce emissions from sulfur dioxide in order to combat acid rain. the program was successful in slashing emissions which not only meant healthier lakes and waterways but healthier communities. the health benefits for humans linked to lower sulfur dioxide emissions were estimated at $50 billion annually by 2010. mrs. boxer: will the senator yield for a question? mr. schatz: i would be pleased to yield to the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i want to thank the senator, and i want to just welcome his remarks. we are in a space here in the senate where there are some people who still say climate change isn't happening, even

though as you and i know, senator, 98% 99% of the scientists in this country say it's obvious and i'm also so pleased my friend is here today because he's talking about cap-and-trade and that will be the essence of my question, and i will ask him two questions. one, how he feels about the pope and the encyclical where the pope is basically saying it the way it is, and it needs to be heard by everyone, and i wonder how my friend responded to that welcoming development and also i wanted to make sure that my friend knew in california we have a cap-and-trade program and i thought it was so good that you reminded people that this was a creation by a republican president dealing with acid rain, and it was so successful and the public

health benefits so outweigh the costs, so i wanted to make sure that my friend was aware we had this cap-and-trade system in california that it's working well. we've balanced our budget in large part because of this and business likes it. they like the certainty of it. and also if he could respond to the issue of the pope's entry into this debate. mr. schatz: i thank the senator from california. through the chair, i will answer the first question first. when it comes to the pope'sen sector lickal, it -- pope's encyclical, it seems to me he is displaying the moral leadership that will be necessary in all sectors, private sector, public sector. democrats, republicans people across the planet are starting to understand the magnitude of the climate challenge. one of the reasons i have been coming to the floor so frequently is not to lambast the other party but rather to encourage there to be conservative leadership in this

space, progressive leadership in this space. and there is increasingly corporate leadership. there is leadership in the department of defense, in the scientific community but what we really need is for conservatives to step up and to acknowledge the reality of this problem and propose their own set of solutions. they may disagree with a carbon fee or a cap-and-trade program or the president's clean power plan but let's have that debate out in the open. come down and beat up on our bill or on the president's proposal that's fine but we need to have this great debate in this great chamber because this is one of the greatest challenges of our time. to the senator's second question talking a little bit about how cap-and-trade has worked in california but also how market-based mechanisms have worked all over north america and across the planet, you're right, there's a cap and trade program in california and the economy has continued to improve, the state's fiscal

situation has continued to improve. we have the hawaii clean energy initiative we've tripled clean energy in a very short period of time. all where unemployment has gone down. in 2008 british columbia became the first and only jurisdiction in north america with an economy-wide price on carbon emissions and seven years later evidence shows even going it alone british columbia was able to reduce petroleum consumption more than the rest of canada without any negative impact on growth. so the senator from california is right. we can do this and grow our economy, but we're going to need bipartisan leadership. market mechanisms are one of the most straightforward solutions to climate change and they have growing support across the ideological spectrum. the carbon fee in our bill is predictable. it can start right away. there's new government program to administer or to run no need for a complex financial

transactions or tradings -- or trading. it is simple, relatively easy to administer and gets the reductions that we need, an estimated 40% of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2030. the bill importantly is revenue neutral. the original carbon fee legislation poured back the new revenue into a bunch of goodies that i liked in terms of dealing with the challenge of climate change. but we understand that if we're going to get republican support this needs to be revenue neutral or close to it and we need to use the revenue to ameliorate the challenges that are going to occur as we transition into a clean energy economy. it also lowers corporate tax rates which makes our tax code more competitive with other countries. but reducing carbon emissions and growing our economy ought to go hand in hand. this bill lays out a clear framework for how to accomplish that.

climate change demands leadership from both progressives and conservatives. a price on carbon is a market-based solution that can appeal to people of multiple ideologies but share a common goal of solving one of the great challenges of our time. in the traditions of margaret thatcher and barry goldwater we need conservatives to embrace their own market-based solutions to our climate challenge. there is nothing conservative about ignoring the collective knowledge of the scientific establishment. there is nothing conservative about ignoring warnings from the department of defense nothing conservative about shirking our responsibility for global leadership and there's nothing conservative about conducting a dangerous experiment on the only planet that we've got. so we have no desire for this to continue to be an issue where only one party is on the floor talking about it. let's have the argument about what the right solution set you ought to be but let's have it out in the open and let's have it together.

thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: boozman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: the e.p.a. recently released its final water rule, claiming much greater power for the administration to oversee the land use decision of homeowners, small businesses, and family farms. throughout our country. this mandate is full of problems and the american people are being sold a false bill of goods. just look at the potential impact to my home state of arkansas. as you can see the entire

state will come under this jurisdiction. the red on this map compiled by the waters of the country's initiative highlights the extent to which this rule would impact arkansas. as you can see the obama administration wants to give bureaucrats in washington control of almost all of the water in arkansas. they're deceiving the american people in order to justify this power grab. first, they imply that washington is in control if -- that unless washington is in control, water is simply not protected. this is not true. clean water protection involves your local communities, private landowners conservation districts, states and local communities. protect nonfederal waters all of the time. second the agency claims this rule is designed to protect drinking water. again, this is an attempt to

scare the american people and it's dishonest. we all want to protect our water resources and clean drinking water is certainly a priority. i support the safe drinking water act. for more than 40 years the safe drinking water act has encouraged federal-state cooperation in improving safe drinking water. that work has made tremendous progress which we can all be proud of. this law is strongly supported by both republicans and democrats. it has been reauthorized and extended by republican controlled congresses and it will continue to improve safe drinking water, whether or not this federal power grab continues. this administration says one thing about safe drinking water and then it does another. for example, in 2013 and 2014, the obama administration cut funding from the safe drinking water grant program. this program which is a federal-state partnership does

far more to protect safe drinking water than anything in the e.p.a.'s new power grab. third, we hear rhetoric about rivers catching on fire and toxic pollution. once again this is an attempt to scare the american people. major rivers will continue to receive federal and state protection just as they have for decades. isolated nonnavigable waters will continue to be protected by state and local efforts as they are now. let's not forget the farmers and landowners care about clean water. as northeast farmer joe christian told the jonesboro sun, i'm not going to do something detrimental to the land i work and live on. there is no greater environmentalist than a farmer, end quote. for the past year arkansas farmers and ranchers have shared with me their concerns of this e.p.a. overreach. i want to share some of the comments i recently received.

fred in sherman wrote -- and i quote -- "like every other person in america i favor clean water. however, there appears to be a grab for power or control related to water. i fail to see how a low spot in a field or a yard or a ditch that i create on my own land should be included. we are being overregulated by washington. please continue to limit intrusion into our lives where none is needed" -- end quote. rodney in lawnsdale sent me an email saying -- and i quote -- " the e.p.a. doesn't need to be monitoring my pond and my streams. tell me what to do or how to use them. this is an overreach" -- end quote. these frustrations are the result of an agency that often abuses its authority creating unnecessary and costly mandates. and it's not just arkansans. across the country people are sounding the alarm on this power grab.

extreme and unlawful are two words the american farm bureau used to describe the rule. an analysis of the finalized rule by the organization determined that the ambiguity of the rule will give the agency -- quote -- "broad discretion to identify waters and to limit the scope of most of the exclusions" -- end quote. the good news is we have a bipartisan agreement that this e.p.a. rule is a problem. after e.p.a. finalized this rule "the wall street journal" published an editorial calling this move by e.p.a. an amphibious attack and urged congress to overturn the rule and force -- quote -- "members to show whose side they're on, the average landowners' or the washington police" -- end quote. that's why i joined the effort to protect property owners and keep washington's hands off of private lands. the federal water equality

protection act safeguards americans from this overreach. it sends e.p.a. back to the drawing board to craft a proposal that encourages true cooperation. it will keep the hands of washington's politicians out of decisions that will be made in states and local communities for generations. under this modest bipartisan legislation, the e.p.a. will be able to protect federal waters without expanding its power. i appreciate senator -- for his efforts. last week my colleagues and i who serve on the environment and public works committee moved this legislation forward. this is a step in the right direction, to protecting the rights of landowners while protecting our nation's waters. i look forward to supporting this commonsense legislation on the senate floor and encouraging

my colleagues to do the same. congress must build on the progress that we've made toward better water quality and we can do this best by protecting the role of states, local communities, and private citizens to be a part of the process. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i want to discuss a bill that i'm introducing today. the title of the bill is transitions to independence act. i'll explain how this leads to more independence for special needs people. the bill is a medicaid demonstration program that will give incentives to states to achieve for integrated employment for people with disabilities. the federal government funds a hodgepodge of programs. these programs provide support for people with disabilities.

however, the largest of all programs providing support for people with disabilities, the medicaid program could do much more to drive better outcomes. we're talking about not just spending money but what do we get for the money we spend. the medicaid program provides critical supports for people with disabilities, including primary health care and home and community-based care. this bill i'm introducing is unique in that it uses the resources of the medicaid program to drive better outcomes for people with disabilities. our public policy encourages people with disabilities to participate in society to live in their own community and to have intergrade -- integrated

employment. but what does the government do to encourage that outcome? what does the government do to ensure that all people with disabilities have the opportunity to achieve their maximum participation? so i'm here to argue that we do not do enough to guarantee those outcomes. the program that is the largest funder of supports for disability -- people with disabilities is medicaid. unfortunately, medicaid funding to states is in no way tied to producing better outcomes. now, i know that we can't just snap our fingers and make that happen. the federal government can't just order states to do better. the supreme court's made that clear. the federal government needs to

provide states the right incentives to achieve better outcomes. that is the goal of the bill that i'm introducing transition to independence act. this bill creates a five-year ten-state medicaid demonstration program. states participating in the demonstration program will receive medicaid bonus payments for meeting achievement targets for individual integrated employment. simply stated, as states move people with disabilities to integrated settings, they get more money. states can also achieve additional funding for agreeing to give up new congregate placements. states can achieve additional funding for ending vocational rehabilitation for congregate

settings. states can achieve funding for taking action that will grow the work force serving people with disabilities. finally, states can achieve funding for taking steps to improve interagency collaboration. too much of our disability policies occur in isolated silos where people in charge of a policy don't talk to each other. so the basis of my legislation is the left hand ought to do what the right hand is doing. for instance, there's health services long-term supports, housing, education, work force training and transportation available to people with disabilities all run by people who aren't working together to

maximize the outcome for the individual. now, of course, it's legitimate for you to ask me, why can't states take these policy steps today? they can take some of these courses of action, but they have a significant financial incentive not to take these actions, and that disincentive comes from our national policies. it will take a significant investment of resources for a state to achieve better outcomes for people with disabilities. if a state wants to improve outcomes it needs to invest in providing the supports necessary to help people with disability participate more fully in the community. in the end moving people with disabilities from more expensive

expensive, congregate settings to more self-sufficient integrated settings is better for the individual and ultimately better for the taxpayers because it will require less intensive less expensive supports. but this is the problem: under medicaid, when a state makes that investment, it has to give up half or more of the savings achieved back to the federal government. again, that is a serious disincentive for states making change. basically, the bonuses that i'm proposing in this bill allow the states to keep the savings they achieve. it is my intention that this bill be essentially budget- budget-neutral to the federal taxpayer while giving states a

real incentive to achieve better outcomes. we can build better support for people with disability. the term often used is a lifespanned benefit. i believe that creation of a lifespan benefit where people with disabilities receive coordinated, multidisciplinary support to achieve the maximum functional outcomes possible begins with this big program called medicaid. it is my intention to prove that through this -- it's my intention to prove that fact through this demonstration bill. i have talked to scores of people with disabilities and their families, and they want to work a real job that pays a fair wage.

agencies that provide these services are committed to helping them find real jobs. it is time to change medicaid incentives to encourage and reward that end result. last week a constituent of mine from dubuque rose carroll visited my office with the autistic self-advocacy network. rose is currently in college working on a degree in math. all rose wants is to know that she will have the support available to her when she needs them so she can do all that she can do to participate in her community. now, simply stated, what rose wants is exactly what this bill intends to do. it will demonstrate that states,

when given the right incentives, will do all they can to make sure rose has those supports. back home my friend chris sparks is the executive director of exceptional persons incorporated waterloo, iowa, 20 miles from my starm. -- from my farm. chris and his staff provide direct-support services for people with disabilities. these workers provide a necessary service in order to assist people with significant intellectual and developmental disabilities to have jobs in their community. but it's a struggle every day for chris to find workers to train them and retrain them. this bill will provide states the incentives to grow the workforce to make it easier for people like chris sparks to go

out and provide services that allow individuals can disabilities -- with disabilities to achieve independence. the bill i introduce today has the support of the american association of people with disabilities the american association on health and disabilities, you autism speaks, the autistic self-advocacy network the muscular dis-trophy association, the national national adult day services association the national association of state directors of developmental disability services, the national association of states united for aging and disabilities and the national downs syndrome congress. the bill also has the support of the american network of community options and resources including iowa members the christian opportunity center, hope haven opportunity village

hillsendale's new village. in their advisory role to the congress the national council on disabilities provided technical assistance on this proposal. this is an opportunity for us to say that outcomes matter, for us to further our -- a conversation about setting the goal of maximum participation and using all of our tools to meet that goal. so i look forward to, first of all, my colleagues looking at this legislation working on my colleagues and others with the hope that we can move this legislation forward in a way that encourages states to do things that they probably want to do but get fined for doing and to make life -- quality of

life for these people much better. i yield the floor. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president are we in the parliamentary procedure to proceed to speak? the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. nelson: thank you mr. president. mr. president, tomorrow pope francis will release a papal encyclical on the environment. it's basically a letter to all catholics about high-priority issues, and he has chosen the environment. now, some might think that the pope is straying outside his

expertise by discussing environmental issues and climate change as the expected encyclical is revealed revealed, but the pope is actually more of a -- has more of a scientific background than many members of congress because the pope was trained as a chemist before he entered seminary. and as we've seen over the course of his first two years as head of the catholic church, pope francis is particularly committed to addressing issues that affect the poor. according to recent news reports, the pope's encyclical will emphasize the moral

imperative that we, as a global community, face in addressing climate change. he calls every person across all faiths to come together to address the global deterioration of our common home. and this stewardship case is a shared common truth for all peoples, the faith community and all. now, many of us have spoken on this floor about climate change and the resulting sea level rise rise. the president has spoken about it numerous times recently, and he visited the florida everglades in my state recently and made a similar case for the

urgent need to take action on climate change and sea level rise. taking care of treasured places like the everglades isn't just about conservation, it's about survival. millions of people in south florida depend on the everglades as the source as that water flows south from upper central florida and recharges the aquifers. it's a vital source of drinking water. it's a vital source that no one can live without. but drinking water wells in south florida are already being

compromised by saltwater intrusion through the porous limestone foundation of our state. mr. president, as the sea level risesrises -- and we had a hearing of our commerce committee in miami beach, which is ground zero. a nasa scientist testified over the last 40 years measurements -- not forecasts not projections -- measurements over the last 40 years the sea level has risen in south florida eight inches. now, what happens when that rises -- and, of course, that starts to inundate the porous limestone which holds the fresh water, which supports the foundation of the peninsula of florida.

you can't do, as the dutch have done build a dike around it. because the water will seep right around your dike into the porous limestone. and so we need to take a hard look at what can be done and doing it soon to get ready for the impacts of climate change and the future to stop humping carbon dioxide, which is the main greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. there are a lot of good ideas out there that could protect communities from climate change, and there are a lot of good ideas out there that could help folks pay their bills. for example my colleague from rhode island senator sheldon whitehouse he has proposed a plan to place a carbon fee or a

dollar fee per ton of carbon emissions and then use that money to lower everybody's tax rate both corporate as well as individual. let it be revenue-neutral. it's a fee on putting carbon which the marketplace would then kick in, making it less desirable to put those greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. those particularly being carbon dioxide. and in the last congress, senator boxer proposed a similar idea of setting a carbon pollution fee. her bill would have directed that the new revenue towards helping communities adopt

climate resiliency measures as well as providing a monthly rebate to u.s. households. well maybe we don't have the magic formula yet but we ought to be able to agree that lowering tax rates for businesses and individuals would be a good thing. but if you're going to do that, you have to have the revenue to pay for it. in other words, you have to have the revenue to replace the revenue that's there now if you lower the tax rates. if you set a price on carbon emissions, it could generate anywhere from $1 trillion to $2 trillion over a decade. and that revenue can put money back into the pockets of hardworking people by virtue of lowering their tax rates.

now, some people might think that this is a political issue that big business is unanimously opposed to. when i first heard it, that's what i thought would be the case. lo and behold, it's not the case. on june 1 six major oil and gas companies, including shell signed a joint letter to the united nations framework convention on climate change in support of establishing a carbon pricing system. what these corporations, these giant corporations understand is that something must be done to reduce carbon emissions. and if they don't pursue a carbon fee or something like it, they're going to face what they

don't want to face, which is e.p.a. regulation and lawsuits and public scrutiny additional over their contribution. and so in their letter, these c.e.o.'s write -- quote -- "as major companies from oil and gas sector we recognize both the importance of climate challenge and the importance of energy to human life and well-being." so mr. president if these corporate giants can acknowledge the seriousness and urgency of climate change, then it just doesn't make sense why we don't get over this political hangup about a free -- call it a tax --

about a fee on carbon and address it here in the senate. for my colleagues who are concerned and frustrated like we are, especially if you live in a state like mine where the sea level's rising and the city of miami beach the mayor of miami beach cut a tv campaign advertising in a kayak at seasonal high tide on alton road in miami beach. well, is it any wonder that we feel like the canary in the coal mine. we're sounding the alarm echoing the warning of scientists echoing the warning of faith leaders. now the pope is going to speak tomorrow in his incyclical and we're echoing the warnings of

americans who are already experiencing real consequences of what's happening in the climate. the state of florida is the literal dmarnry in the coal -- literal canary in the coal mine, and the state of florida is ground zero for all of this that's happening. this year is going to mark ten years since hurricane katrina. and just last months experts at c.b.o. estimated that with climate change, hurricane damage will skyrocket over the next 60 years. why? as the earth heats up, because when the sun rays reflect off the earth and reflect back into space, if the greenhouse gases are there they act as a shield. it traps the heat. where does 90% of the heat go?

it goes in the world's oceans. the hotter the water the more fuel for a more ferocious hurricane. floods droughts, heat waves sea level rise, wildfires melting sea ice these are costly and deadly consequences. and regardless of what it takes mr. president, the science the economics, the corporate executives the moral imperative and the pope they've all called attention though let's not suffer the same fate as other canaries in the coal mine. so i encourage all of you're colleagues to look at this -- all of our colleagues to look at

this issue anew. look at it to confront the channeling and be good stewards of earth's bounty that we are all blessed to have. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: mr. president i'd like to spend a few moments in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much. mr. president, i've had three chances to come to the floor to say congratulations to the san francisco giants when they won the world series. that was in the last five years. i didn't do it. and last night the golden state warriors won the n.b.a., and i want to remedy the error of my

ways and come and offer the hardiest congratulations to truly a great basketball team. this team had a remarkable season. the regular season of 67 to 115 was the sixth best in the history of the n.b.a. and they went 15 in 5 in the playoffs but dominance want built on brute force. it was built on finesse strategy and team work. steph curry was a super star offering flashes of brilliance all season. i had the occasion to meet him and have a picture taken with him, and i stood against this tall american and put my arm around his waist. i realized how slender he was and i subsequently learned that they're trying to get him to eat 6,000 calories a day i guess to meet lebron james. but it was quite a matchup.

and i was delighted to be able to watch these games. after a scary fall in game four against the rockets steph came back in game five to lead the warriors in scoring boosting them into the finals. mr. president, last year when i met them at warriors practice, i saw a little bit about the team. and one player that i hadn't seen was a gentleman by the name of andre igoulawa, who came alive against the cavaliers in the finals. after playing on the bench for the last three games he started the final three and was the defensive spark the warriors needed. now, no one can stop lebron james. and as i watched the series, i really marveled at this man because he was a very intelligent player. and once he charged toward that basket, there were very few who could stop him.

it was an amazing performance. all season long clay thompson was an offensive dynamo stepping up when the team needed him most. and of course dramond harrison barnes and others and what a season for rookie coach steve kerr. he spent his whole life in basketball but only a hand full of months as coach under his belt. and he took an undersized team with little playoff experience all the way. it was a dream come true. i'd like to congratulate the warriors owners as well as the team's president. i've had the privilege of meeting these three people. oakland can be very proud of them and they are building a new arena in san francisco so the whole bay area will have an opportunity to participate in this team's glory.

these gentlemen brought the team team -- bout the team four years ago and in that short time they guided what was a moribund franchise into the best team in the league. so they rightly should be thanked for their accomplishment. finally, to my colleague the distinguished senator from ohio, rob portman i offer my condolence and i look forward to collecting on our wager which mr. president, is some ohio beer. i trust it's going to be good beer and i look forward to drinking it and hopefully being able to tell him that there will be another time, and that team can only but rise in glory as well. finally, to the warriors i look forward to continued greatness both in oakland and across the bay in san francisco. so their first title since 1975

really brought the city of oakland together and made them proud. and so i say to them thank you for some wonderful memories. mr. president, i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: .

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks by the gentleman from virginia that i be recognized for five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection.

the senator from virginia. mr. warner: the quorum has been dispensed with? the presiding officer: it has. mr. warner: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak up to 15 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: mr. president i come to the floor today to speak about the changing nature of our economy. i've come to talk about a part of our economy that i don't think most folks in this chamber understand. it goes by many names. it's called the sharing economy the on-demand economy the gig economy, the 1099 economy. there's a lot of discussion actually in some circles about exactly what to call this changing nature of our economy. but there is no dispute that it represents a new dynamic and growing part of our american economy. it used to be when you were

introduced to someone, one of the first questions you'd ask is where do you work. today, particularly for the 80 million-plus millenials that make up the largest age cohort in our society the more appropriate question is to ask what are you working on? that's because the american workforce is increasingly made up of freelancers independent contractors, and the self-employed. yet washington mostly has remained on the sidelines as our economy, the workforce and workplace, have undergone what may be the most dramatic transformation literally in decades. now, by my count as folks announced yesterday almost 25 people are running for president in 2016. and, frankly i find it remarkable that none of them, in either party are even talking

about these fundamental changes and how when, and where americans are currently working. because whether by economic necessity or by choice one-third or more of the american workforce now find themselves piecing together two three, or more on-demand opportunities to make a living. as i said earlier it's called the sharing economy the on-d.e.a.on-demand economy or the gig economy. it includes, as i mentioned as well a lot of yupg young millennials, 80-million strong, who began entering the workforce in the year 2000 and afterwards. the good news about this generation is that it is the best-educated, the most diverse and tolerant and the most technologically adept and the most comfortable with disruptive change than any generation america has seen, and that's

good. most millennials have grown up in the glow of a computer monitor. since childhood most of them have maintained and online identity and networked in realtime with friends. members of this generation can if they choose, graduate from a college or university without ever stepping foot on campus. armed with a tablet or smartphone, they can successfully work for an employer without ever sitting a the a desk from 9:00 to 5:00. but it is not just the millennials who are pushing the envelope on how and when and where people work. it is also includes many middle-age professionals unexpectedly downsized at midcareer. it includes baby boomers folks in my generation. i know a number of my college classmates who have been hit with a premature end to what they thought before the recession was a solid career. frankly, it also includes a lot of folks for whom working multiple jobs at the same time

is nothing new. they call it survival, and it hasn't gotten any easier. yet here in washington, too few policy-makers are thinking creatively about the ways to provide more americans with more footholds into this new world of on-demand or freelance work. and, in addition, today we have a whole set of new online platforms, companies that didn't even exist five years -- air bnb, and etsy. air bnb already has more rooms available than marriott. these platforms match supply and demand for things people never even thought about monetizing before: a room, a ride, a specific skill even the whole notion of free time. many of these business models in this on-demand economy are built upon the premise that workers are independent contractors not employees. this means that employers can

end the relationship at any time. much of the work is project-based. contracts and clients can dry up and it's tougher to create new ones without any office to go to. it also means employers do not have to pay costs or contribute to health insurance or retirement. they also typically don't pay a share of unemployment or workers' compensation. so the whole notion of the social safety net and social contract between worker and the employer has totally changed. if we think back to our parents' generation -- i think about my dad. he worked 40 years the same job. didn't make a lot of money but he knew he was going to get some benefits. he retired he's going to get a pension. that changed in my generation. the baby boomers you didn't work the same place. i worked in what i would call the 401(k) generation. defined benefits moved to

defined contribution. these online workers today even if they're doing relatively well exist on a high-wire with no social safety net beneath them. that may work for them when times are going well, until the day it doesn't. that's why ultimately when things go wrong for this new gig economy workers without any safety net without any unemployment without any workmen's comp, and ultimately end back on the taxpayers' dime. that's why washington needs to catch up and start asking some tough policy solutions but also with the recognition that with the growth in this part of the economy, washington can't impose a solution. first, the biggest challenge may be this fundamental change in the employer-employee relationship. are there other options for providing a safety net of basic benefits for workers who are not connected to a traditional

full-time employer? who should administer it? should it be opt-in or opt-out? we could look to the health care exchanges as a public-private model now in many places it appears to be working. could you think about a workmen's comp exchange that workers and employers could work with? we might borrow the idea of the hour bank that was used by traditional trade unions for 60 years. a carpenter would move from one contractor to another committing a little bit of resources, the employer committing resources but it was trusted and administered by a trusted third party. other countries primarily in the e.u., are experimenting with worker administrator pools. freelancers put in a certain amount of income based on the income they would need to replace if they got sick or injured, and they collect it if they're sidelined for more than a month. part of the solution might even be consumer-driven. what if customers could designate a portion of the naiments to uber or air bnb into

a designated fund that helps support workers a social insurance fund? there may be other public-private models out there and they deserve a look, too. second, this is too important to leave to the courts. while litigation is under way about whether on-demand workers are independent contractors or employees, we cannot and must not leave this to the courts aleon. we learned just today of a ruling from california labor regulate,a ruling that is expected to be challenged, that california labor regulators have determined that uber drivers are to be considered employees and not independent contractors. this ruling demonstrates yet again why federal policy-makers need to reexamine the whole notion of 20th century definitions and employment classifications. when we're thinking about a 21st century workforce workforce. as i mentioned as many as one-third of american workers are participating in some aspect of this on-demand economy. we have a responsibility to

provide clarity and predictability instead of allowing inconsistency as these issues are litigated case by case state by state. third, the federal government needs to become much more nimble. frankly folks on both sides of the aisle would acknowledge the federal government operates at less than dial-up speed. we need better data about how many people are a part of the gig or sharing economies. the g.a.o. reported last month that the department of labor has not been tasked with a deep dive on workforce data in more than ten years. better data would tell us a lot about who is working in the sharing economy and what characteristics they share. better data would result in better policy. as federal policy-makers we also need to recommit to extending broadband to underserved and unserved regions. you can't be linked in if you don't have a link. the in addition, we should

streamline the hodgepodge of federal programs that we've set up to support innovation and entrepreneurs. these programs are scattered across dozens of federal agencies and they exist in a budgetary cycle of feast or famine. and we cannot ignore the opportunity cost of this generation's combined $1.2 trillion in student debt. it is limiting options opportunities, and economic mobility for an entire generation. finally, this millennial generation is beginning to fuel a tremendous shaft shift shift? one of the most tra -- a tremendous shift in one of the most traditional anchors of america economy. younger americans are making it clear that in many cases they prefer sharing or renting over ownership. i was talking to brad khesky, the c.e.o. of air bnbb the other day. this is a company that didn't

exist five years ago. for his parents the idea was to own a house have two cars, put your kids through college and maybe -- just maybe if you did well get a little house at the beach or on the lake. but he says the hallmarks of success for this millennial generation are much more different. younger people want control of their data and online online reputations. they don't aspire to own things like cars or houses. they want to collect experiences which they can best document and share online. i ask all my colleagues, next time you are at a town hall, ask whatever audience, would you rather have athe home mortgage deduction or credit against your debt? 90% overall say give me that credit on my student debt rather than a home mortgage deduction. think about this. as policy-makers this generation's move away from ownership and towards sharing and rentsdzing renting could have huge imablghts on every level of

government. that's because we currently use our -- property taxes or how state and local governments pay for schools and public safety. if we have an economy increasingly built on sharing and rengts and not ownership that could have tremendous ramifications. mr. president, i mentioned five years ago no one had ever heard of air bnb or uber. while we don't know what the disruptive technologies like tomorrow might look like, we no that same-day drone deliveries and 3-d printing are right around the corner. what we do know is this: that some version of this sharing economy is here to stay. as policy-makers, we need to ask the right questions discuss the appropriate rules of the road, and how and when we need to get out of the way. instead of trying to make this new economy look like the old washington should encourage more innovation. and we need to work to create more opportunities and more

up-ward equal mobility for everyone. i look forward to continuing this discussion today and in the weeks to come. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask that the quoirm call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the filing deadline, under rule 22,

it be in order for me to offer a modification to the pending hatch amendment number 1911, with the text that is at the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection in. mr. mccain: mr. president reserving the right to object -- and i will not object -- the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: -- i am aware that the senator from oklahoma feels very strongly about this amendment. we discussed it and voted on it in the committee. at that time, i told the senator from oklahoma, who who was my friend for many years that i would do what i could to see that he got a vote before the entire senate. i am in disagreement with his amendment but i want to respect his right to offer it, and so -- and i appreciate less than you know his tenacity. mr. president, i will not object. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: the amendment is so modified. the presiding officer: i sngdz

themodified.-- the presiding officer: amendment is is not modified. mr. inhofe: this is something that doesn't happen often on the senate floor. the senator from arizona is indeed a very good friend. we disagree on this amendment. we'll have a chance to have vote on this. but the fact that he did make a commitment that i would have a vote is very meaningful to me, and he did keep his word, and i thank him very much. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: i'd like to speak for ten minutes as if we're in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: thank you mr. president. i just want to inform the body that i had a very good conversation with secretary kerry just a few minutes ago. as many of you may have been following the news, there was a statement attributed to secretary kerry that the possible military dimensions of

the ire rainan nuclear program -- iranian nuclear program was no longer a priority in terms of reconciling what they had been doing in a military fashion with their nuclear program. some of the words were to the effect there will be no mea culpa required. i got off the phone with him and he indicated to me that possible military dimensions of the program in terms of iranian past behavior is very much on the table. april 8 it, 2015, here's what secretary kerry said: when asked in april if iran slowed its nuclear activities, as part of the agreement secretary kerry said they have to do it. it will be done. if there's going to be a deal, it will be done. secretary kerry reaffirmed to me that statement. i appreciate him calling me. i want the body to understand a good deal with iran will be a blessing. a bad deal will be a nightmare. the iaea has knot had access --

has not had access to the sites they need, have not allowed to go and suspect high explosive debt nation was being tested as part of their nuclear weapons ambition. there are three things the iaea wants to look at before they can pass judgment over how far the nuclear military program has gone down the road and i can't imagine any deal that doesn't fully and completely answer every question about possible military dimensions of the iranian nuclear program. because if you don't understand what they've done in the past, you don't know where you are in terms of going forward. you can't have a meaningful inspection regime until you understand what they tried to do in terms of a military dimension. so i really do appreciate secretary kerry calling me. the one thing we learned about the iranians and their nuclear program, they cannot be trusted. they have lied, they have cheated at every turn. there can be no wiggle room. any time, anywhere inspections

is absolutely a must. understanding their possible military dimensions is an absolute ingredient along with others. so i'm glad i received this phone call from secretary kerry but all of us need to be aware of who we're dealing with when it comes to the iranians and get every i dotted and t crossed before you entertain a deal with the iranians. mr. mccain: would the senator yield for a question? mr. graham: absolutely. mr. mccain: is it my understanding from the senator's statement that secretary kerry is now saying that that was not an accurate quote of his? mr. graham: yes. mr. mccain: that it was not urgent that the previous activities concerning development of nuclear weapons would be absolutely required? mr. graham: yes. he indicated that the statement that was attributed to him was taken out of context and reaffirmed to me on the phone that possible military dimensions are an essential part of the deal, as he indicated on april 8 2015.

i think he's issuing a statement, or his office is right now. i think this is important for the body to understand that secretary kerry wants to clear up the record. i applaud him for that. i hope we can get a deal we all can live with. but at the end of the day you've got to remember who we're dealing with in terms of iranians. they have lied, they have cheated. and when it comes to their military dimensions of their program, it is essential we know every detail before we can move forward with confidence. mr. mccain: could i ask additionally did the senator from south carolina have an opportunity to ask secretary kerry about the latest information concerning iranians who are now supplying weapons to the taliban the same taliban that has killed many hundreds of americans and wounded thousands of others? in other words, did you have a chance to ask the secretary why we are pursuing this agreement

while the iranians latest being supplying arms to the taliban to kill americans? the support of the shia militias in iraq, the support of the houthis in other countries including yemen the support of the iranians for hezbollah in lebanon that are in syria killing off the free syrian army forces that we are supporting and the continued development by iran of a nuclear warhead and the vehicle with which to deliver it. i wonder if the senator from south carolina had the chance to ask the secretary of state about those events and situations that

exist in the middle east today? mr. graham: no, i did not. we talked specifically about his statements. but i understand the senator from arizona's concern about the idea of doing an agreement with the iranians that would give them money to fund what i think has been a very destructive war machine. from my point of view we need to look at the iranian behavior holistically and understand the consequences of flooding this administration with cash, the iranian administration with cash given the fact that what they're doing today is using whatever resources they have under sanctions to destabilize the mideast. i doubt if any additional funds if sanctions were relieved, would go to build hospitals or roads. i think they would go into the activity you just described. but this conversation was limited to the statement attributed to him yesterday. i think all of us should be very attuned to what's going on with these negotiations as the most important decision any administration will make probably in modern history. the consequences of a bad deal are enormous.

you could start a nuclear arms race in the mideast and at the end of the day the behavior of the iranians apart from their nuclear ambitions is at best disturbing and should be, in my view part of any negotiating package. but we are where we are and i'm glad to hear from the secretary himself that possible military dimensions have to be fully explored and understood before you move forward with an agreement. so, thank you mr. president. with that, i yield and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that not withstanding roulette -- rule 22 the time until 4:00 p.m. today be equally divided between the managers or their designees that at 4:00 p.m. all postcloture time be expired. further, if cloture is invoked on h.r. 1735 that the time count as if it was invoked at 10:00 p.m. tonight and that the mandatory quorum call with respect to this cloture motion be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. mccain: mr. president i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the

clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. king: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak sphsh morning business for ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. king: world refugee day is succombing up -- is coming up

saturday and i'd like to highlight something that has come up spontaneously in one of our maine cities that is making a difference in the lives of young people, particularly young refugees from somalia sudan and other african countries helping them to expand their own horizons. as the roots of our refugee and immigrant population continue to grow stronger in maine and in the process strengthen our communities, a group called tree street youth is helping to nurture that growth one student at a time. i have visited tree street youth, and it's an amazing program. maine's history like the rest of america is inexorably linked to immigration. with the exception of our narrative tribes, we are -- of our native tribes we are all from somewhere else. it began with european immigrants. people with french heritage came

from canada. swedes settled in northern arista county in maine. african-americans were brought here against their will but they became part of the stock of this country. for years immigrants in maine found work in mills and farms and fields, and now their descendants are our leaders business leaders political leaders, our neighbors our friends and our family. and just as previous waves of immigrants have come to maine in search of a better life for themselves and their children, newer immigrants, including refugees and asylum seekers from somalia, south sudan and several african countries are making new homes in maine and making maine more diverse more dynamic and a better place in the process. i think it's important to point out that these refugees are people we have in effect invited to come to this country because

the conditions in their former countries were so unstable or because they feared persecution. these people are not illegal immigrants. they are people and they are not illegal aliens. they are people here under a legal process. they're looking for a new start and they're willing to work hard, as we've learned in maine. but anyone who finds themselves in an entirely new situation in an unfamiliar situation, in a situation where they may not be familiar with the language, those people can always use some help and support and groups like tree street youth in louiston are so important and can have such a huge impact because they smooth the transition and help promote cooperation and understanding within the community and particularly the transition of young people. this remarkable organization was founded in 2011 by two former

bates college students which is itself located in the city of lewiston julia sleeper and kim sullivan. they recognize the need for such a group for such a facility. tree street youth is dedicated to supporting young people in the lewiston-auburn area through academics, the arts and athletics. the organization which originally grew out of a simple after-school homework help program now provides local youth with a safe space to promote healthy physical, social, emotional and academic development. through its flourishing arts, college prep and job training programs, tree street is not only giving young people the tools, support and confidence they need to succeed it's also helping to bring students from all back grounds in the city of lewiston together. tree street youth has proven to be a tremendous resource in

lewiston and auburn, particularly for young people from immigrant families. the support services and sense of community that's provided there empowers these young people to be independent and productive members of society and while integrating into the community can be difficult for recent immigrants, refugees and their families, the tree street experience helps to connect young people to their peers and to the community as a whole. this is a two-way street of understanding that helps bring our communities together. for example tree street youth have an annual banquet recently this past may and it was i'm told a fun and emotional event and a showcase that allowed the tree street students to share some of their talents with the lewiston-auburn community. i'm told that after the students gave an inspiring array of

performance about their experiences, it was hard to find a dry eye in the house. that really speaks to the life-changing power that this organization has brought to our community. and just as tree street youth improves young lives these young people can in turn improve maine and america. we need, we need motivated talented and creative people from all backgrounds if we're going to keep pace with the rest of the world. we need students like luna muhammad who i met here just a few weeks ago when she represented maine in the senate youth leadership program. muna, whose family is from somalia, is the president of her class at lewiston high school, serves as a student representative on the lewiston school committee involved in her school's speech, mock trial civil rights teams and has a long list of other accomplishments.

they highlight her remarkable, remarkable leadership qualities which radiate when you meet her. this is what america's all about, mr. president. it's about families from around the world finding a new start bringing with them new perspectives new ideas and new hope for the future. it's the main spring of the american experience. it's about a melting pot of peoples, cultures, ideas that create a tap industry that is -- tapestry that is much stronger than any single thread. welcoming new people in cultures hasn't always been easy, and it's not easy. sometimes our differences are more immediately apparent than our similarities, but over the years, immigrants and refugees have proven to be an irreplaceable part, the essential part of who america is. this wonderful organization

started spontaneously in one of our great cities of maine tree street youth has proven that support in community engagement can help ease that transition and create a brighter future for those students, for maine and for our entire country. mr. president, that's good news for maine and good news for the united states. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you mr. president. i rise today to discuss the ports act -- i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gardner: thank you mr. president. i rise today to discuss the ports act legislation i have introduced to protect the american economy from crippling labor disputes at our seaports. some may ask why a senator from colorado is interested in legislation dealing with the work stoppage or slowdown that occurred on our ports on the west coast. well i'll tell you why. i was contacted by numerous businesses, people who had their entire furniture lines taken out of their furniture stores. i talked to ranchers who had to face threats of a billion-dollar

ag export market. i talked to onion growers who watched as their domestic commodity prices crashed due to the port slowdown, watched as stories were written in newspapers about apple growers in washington unable to export apples they dumped apples just to rot in the fields in washington state. a trade through u.s. seaports is critical. we have been spending weeks on this floor or the floor of the house talking about the trans-pacific partnership talking about the importance of trade promotion authority and none of that is possible without an active, successful port system in this country. according to the american association of port authorities u.s. ports support 23 million jobs, and the value of related economic activity accounts for 20%, 26% of our national gross domestic product. contract negotiations and related labor disputes at our ports clog up these vital arteries and lead to delays, higher costs and lost businesses for industries throughout our country. strikes, lockouts and slowdowns

have been -- has been business as usual for labor unions in the past, but an increasingly global economy means that the collateral damage done to american workers and businesses has increased exponentially. the u.s. economy recently endured a nine-month labor dispute that affected all 29 of our west coast ports. the resulting logistical nightmare caused delays, higher costs and lost businesses for industries in colorado and throughout the united states. ships full of cargo were england ored off our coasts awaiting longshoremen to do their job in unloading international goods and loading american-made products for shipment across the world. in los angeles and long beach alone, dozens of container ships sat anchored and idle. after nine months of huge financial cost to our national economy, the parties reached agreement in february to allow cargo to begin moving normally through the west coast ports again. four months later we're finally seeing that congestion beginning

to ease, but it's taken this long. many economists, including the federal reserve board of governors, cited the labor dispute as a primary cause of the .7% decline in g.d.p. in the first quarter of 2015. that means 29 west coast ports were responsible for .7% decline in g.d.p. agricultural exports including apples hay and christmas trees lost export opportunities to overseas customers because they couldn't get products to market. meat and poultry companies lost sales and faced port charges in excess of $300 million per week. retail shipments were delayed from reaching store shelves and some stores resorted to expensive air freight to stock goods. and manufacturers waiting on shipments had to shut down production lines and risk losing contracts with foreign customers. colorado supplies asia with over $500 million in beef products through the west coast ports

which accounts for about 23% of colorado's total exports and 57% of colorado's international exports. these and other meat and poultry exporters saw many of their products spoil as shipments were turned away at the port's gates. grain, machine parts coal, fishing supplies, furniture fresh produce and pliable metals are all products of colorado, and all were damaged by the labor dispute. our exporters' relationship with asian customers disintegrated as their orders were caught in the bottleneck. and storefronts lost customers because products took months to reach show floors. when congress enacted taft-hartley nearly 70 years ago, congress decided that the health and reputation of the greatest economy in the world should not be used as leverage in labor contract negotiations. the opening statement of the act explains that congress intended to minimize industrial strife which interferes with the normal

flow of commerce. that means that current law provided a remedy, but unfortunately the administration did not use it. under that very provision of the act, under taft-hartley, when a labor dispute threatens the national economy, the president is empowered to use the federal courts to seek an injunction to end labor practices that caused the widespread disruptions. with 70 years of case law backing it up this is a tried and true practice that ensures the self-interest and greet of a few does not impact the livelihoods of a many. yet when it threatens industries and states across the country the president refused to act. for months the federal executive branch decided not to exercise authority under taft-hartley depriving the country of critical dispute resolution powers. the legislation i have introduced known as the ports act prevents this kind of economic disruption. the ports act would discourage

disruptions at ports and incentivize speedy resolution by expanding the well known taft-hartley process. the president of the united states may not be willing to adequately protect the economic rights and interests of american citizens but the ports act would solve this by granting state governors taft-hartley powers currently reserved for the president. a governor from any state would have the opportunity to form a board of inquiry and start the taft-hartley process whenever a port labor dispute is causing economic harm. once the board reports back any governor can petition formula courts to enjoin the slowdown or lockouts at their state. the lockout explicitly includes slowdowns preventing the president or governors from using legal ambiguity to excuse inaction. this would give a stronger voice to local leaders. local community leaders businesses and employees and consumers to apply pressure on

their governors rather than trying to mobilize a national campaign to convince the president to act. in just five years in just five years the labor contract at both the east coast and the west coast ports will expire. possibly leading to labor disputes on both ends of the country. when the health of the national economy is threatened the federal government has a duty to act but it is clear that the current taft-hartley powers depend too heavily he heavily on who controls the presidency. it is critical we have the tools in place to prevent another debilitating crisis. so i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. countless retail organizations individual businesses, people across this country have recognized the need to avoid in five years a simultaneous slowdowns or shutdowns on the east and west coast what we just went through. mr. president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: thank you mr. president. people across the country are eagerly anticipating the supreme court and its decision in king versus burwell for good reason. this case will likely determine for once and for all whether the obama administration violated its own law when it opted to issue tax subsidies to those who purchased insurance on a federal -- on federally run exchanges. many of argued this decision will determine the fate of the so-called affordable care act. and while that argument may be a little dramatic, it isn't far off. i are have my own views on how the court should rule on that

case. indeed i've made it abundantly clear in my view the statute unambiguously limits tax subsidies to plans purchased on state-run exchanges. i've stated numerous times my belief that the obama administration overstepped its authority and broke its own law when it offered subsidies to patients on exchanges established by the federal government. however, as we all await the outcome of the case we need to be clear on one point. regardless how the court rules in king versus burwell obamacare will continue to inflict harm on patients and taxpayers until it is repealed and replaced with sensible patient-centered reform. last week president obama reiterated he had no alternative plan in place in the event of the supreme court rules against the administration in this case. on top of that, he flippantly

stated that quote -- "congress could fix this whole thing with a one-sentence provision" -- unquote. mr. president, nothing could be further from the truth. the problem with obamacare are so fundamental and convoluteed the idea the entire law can be fixed in one sentence is laughable. the president and his allies in congress have good at cherry-picking data points to claim obamacare is working but the overall numbers do not lie. earlierier this month the administration proposed tax hikes of 10% or more for health insurance plans that enroll more than six million people in 41 states. this is just the latest premium hike patients and consumers have seen under obamacare. despite the fact that the authors of the law including the president himself promised it would bring costs down. the failure to reduce costs isn't the only broken promise

we've seen with obamacare. millions of americans have lost their insurance plans and their doctors due to the recoverily burdensome mandates embedded in the law. many of these same people were forced to navigate a failed web site that jeopardized their private information. others were forced to purchase plans that included coverage they didn't need or want. as a result of this misguided law, many hardworking taxpayers received incorrect tax documents related to their premium subsidies followed by a surprise tax bill. just yesterday the department of health and human services office of inspector general issued a report noting that the administration did not have systems in place to ensure that obamacare credits that went out last year were accurate. this vulnerability may be leading to untold billions in fraud, waste and abuse.

i could go on, mr. president. the problems and hardships associated with obamacare have been well documented and none of them can be solved with a one-sentence bill. millions of americans have already suffered under obamacare. and if over the next few weeks the supreme court confirms that the administration broke the law by offering subsidies on federal exchanges, millions more will face the negative consequences of this poorly drafted statute. in fact, the study published today shows these consumers could face annual premium contribution increases of $3,300 in 2015. fortunately the republicans in congress have a transition plan to protect these patients. indeed there is wide consensus that should the court rule against the government in king versus burwell we need to act to

protect americans from further suffering at the hands of obamacare's broken promises. toward that end i support a transition plan that provides temporary financial assistance to those who would lose subsidies as a result of the court's decision to help them to keep their insurance if that's what they want. if they want it. at the same time the transition plan should peel back obamacare 's burdensome mandates give individuals more flexibility to purchase coverage that meets their needs and give states the ability to develop policies that better serve their citizens. this temporary transition should build a bridge that gets us away from obamacare and puts us on a path toward lasting patient-centered reform. of course, this ultimately goal will likely have to wait until we have a new administration in place one that is willing to actually work with congress to address the actual needs of patients and taxpayers. despite the claims of uninformed

critics, republicans in congress have been working for months to ensure a transition plan will be ready when the court delivers its ruling and make no mistake, we will do our best to be ready. at the same time, republicans in both chambers have worked together to put forward substantive and workable alternatives that would permanently replace the president's health care law with reforms that increase patient choice and reduce the role of the federal government in health care. i'm a coauthor of one such plan, mr. president, it's called the patient care act. i along with chairman alexander and upton in the house released the latest version of this plan earlier this year. the plan has gotten high marks from a number of analysts and publications. so while it's a common refrain among the supporters of obamacare that chaos will ensue if the court rules against the federal government in king versus burwell the facts tell

a much different story. republicans in congress will be ready to respond quickly and decisively to any possible outcome. let's be clear mr. president none of us knows how the court is going to rule in this case. i've heard analysis and predictions that vary across the board. no matter how this particular case turns out, we know for certain that obamacare has been a dismal failure for american patients and hardworking taxpayers. this entire case is yet another reminder of how more than five years after it was signed, this bill continues to cause problems. no matter how the court rules in king versus burwell, we need to chart a different course on health care for the american people. mr. president, let's face it. one reason why we would set up a time frame if the case goes against secretary burwell and

the administration, we need to set up a time that we can work on these matters and hopefully bring a national consensus to bear to be able to resolve the problems that will be found if we don't -- that are there if we don't do what is right. so it's going to take some time. and that's why we suggest that there should be a time leading well into the next administration to be able to work on this to accomplish these matters. and during that time make sure that nobody is hurt because of the decision in king versus burwell should it go against the federal government. mr. president, this is one of the great problems of our times and there's no simple answer to these problems and we know one thing, we can't continue under the current obamacare as it is written. if we continue to do that, we're just going to continue to

go down a sinkhole of expenditures debt and doctors leaving the profession and inability to provide the health care that so glowingly was spoken of by this administration. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: mr. inhofe: will the senator withhold his notification? let me say the senior senator from utah has done a yeoman's job in exposing the things to do with obamacare. i applaud him for that. earlier today i made a motion that was incomplete and i want to be correct that having to do with a drafting error. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the hatch amendment number 1911 be further modified to address a drafting error. the presiding officer: is there

objection? without objection. mr. inhofe: thank you mr. president. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president shortly we will have a vote, and i'd like to say a few words about the legislation before we do. how much time is remaining? the presiding officer: about 1 -- about 13 minutes remaining. mr. mccain: i say to my colleagues this defense authorization act is a reform bill. i repeat, it is a reform bill. a reform bill that will enable our military to rise to the

challenges of a more dangerous world, both today and in the future. it tackles acquisition reform, military real estate tirement reform personnel reform, headquarters and management reform. we identified $10 billion of excess and unnecessary spending from the president's budget request. and we're re-investing it in military capabilities for our war fighters and reforms that can yield long-term savings for the department of defense. we do did all this while up-holding our commitments to our service members, retirees and their families. on acquisition reform, we put the services about a being into the acquisition process created new mechanisms to ensure accountability for results streamlined regulation, and opened up the defense acquisition process to our nation's innovators. on military reform, re-modernized and improved our military retirement system.

today 83% of service members leave the service with no retirement assets or benefits. under the new plan, 75% of service members would get benefits. this reform over time is estimated to save $15 billion per year in the out years. on management reform, we ensure that the department of defense and the military services are using precious defense dollars to fulfill their missions and defend the nation, not expand their bloated staffs. targeted reductions in headquarters and administrative staff in this legislation, which is 7.5% mandated, mandated reduction per year, up 30% reduction in the size of administrative staff will generate $1.3 billion just for 2016. with more savings accelerated throughout the bill.

we accelerated shipbuilding, added an up-graded fighter aircraft added key services across the services and met our commanders' most urgent needs. as addker haveas adversaries threaten our ability, the bill includes direct in energy and unmanned combat aircraft. the legislation is a reflection of the growing threats we face in the world. the legislation authorizes nearly $3.8 billion in support for afghanistan security forces as they continue to defend their country and the gains of the last decade against our common enemies. the legislation authorizes the provision of defensive lethal assistance to ukraine to help it build combat capability and to defend its sovereign territory. it supports the efforts by lebanon and jordan to secure their borders against isil, creates a new initiative to help

southeast asian nations build maritime domain awareness capabilities to address growing sovereignty challenges in the south china sea. this is an ambitious piece of legislation, but in the times we live that's exactly what we need. henry kissinger told our committee earlier this year that our nation faces the most diverse and complex array of crises since the end of world war ii rising to these challenges requires both reform to our national defense. this legislation represents a strong first step in that direction. mr. president, as i said, this is a reform bill. this is an authorizing bill. this brings about much-needed reforms. mr. president, i can't go to the people of arizona and justify defense spending when there is a $2.4 billion cost overrun on an aircraft carrier where there are a number of weapons systems

which billions of dollars have been invested and never becomes reality. that s&l has to be reformed -- that system has to be reformed. that's what this bill does. we have to reform our military retirement system. we allow people, after just two years of service to to be allowed to contribute to their own re-tiement. today they have to wait 20 years mured to do that. -- in order to do that. we up-grade fighter aircraft. we tell the defense industry that they cannot have these cost overruns and the service chiefs, if there is cost overruns, have to personally sign that they know of, are aware of, and are taking action to prevent further cost overruns. so, there is a lot in this legislation. it's an authorizing legislation and that's why it disturbs me a great deal to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying they want to vote against it because of o.c.o. that is not sufficient reason in

these times. if they want to fight against o.c.o. the place to do it, the overseas contingency operation money, which brings up spending -- authorizing spending to the same level that the president has requested if they want to do that, then let's have that fight in another are-navment but let's not away from the men and women who are serving the equipment and training and the leadership that is demanded in the world as it is today, in the words of henry kissinger "more diverse and complex array of crises since the end of world war ii." so i urge all of my completion to restate their -- colleagues to restate their commitment to the defense of this nation by voting in favor of this legislation and cloture prior to that. so mr. president i urge my colleagues all of them, to understand that we can fight about this funding situation

the need to repeal sequestration. sequestration is destroying our military's capability of defending this nation. every uniformed service leader who appeared before the armed services committee said that we're -- with sequestration we're putting the lives of the men and women in uniform at greater rick. we-- at greater risk. we shouldn't do that. we here in congress won't take action to keep them from being placed in greater danger? that's an abrogation of our responsibility. this bill doesn't fix all that. but it certainly is a major step in the right direction. and almost all of this legislation was done in a bipartisan basis. there were literally -- there were some small disagreements but overall the committee together. now at the behest of their leadership -- and perhaps the president of the united states -- they are so torqued up about

o.c.o. that they may vote against this legislation's passage, and that, my friends is an abrogation of their responsibility of the men and women who are serving this country. and if they choose to vote against this legislation on the grounds that they are opposed to the funding mechanism used to do so then they have their priorities up-side down, and i intend to tell the american people about it because i believe that we're not serving the men and women who are serving this country to the best of their ability are not receiving the support that they need and deserve from the congress -- from the senate of the united states of america. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president i ask that the call of the quorum be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: mr. president i'm speaking on an amendment the senate will be voting on shortly, the inhofe-mikulski amendment. really the amendment weighs led by the distinguished senator from oklahoma, senator inhofe. this is really about commissaries. we're here today getting ready to vote on the closing -- on the department of defense authorization. we want to stand up for our troops and one of the most important things we can do is to stand up for their families.

senator inhofe and i are deeply concerned that d.o.d. has the misguided viewpoint that shrinking or eliminating or privatizing commissaries will save money for the united states department of defense. we don't even know what the impact of that is, and it was senator inhofe, with my encouragement and support wants to have an amendment that we actually look at the impact of privatization and a private program to do so. so i want my side of the aisle to know, we stand shoulder to shoulder on this. the senator from oklahoma has done an outstanding job as always in standing up for the troops in a very important benefit. so i note that he's on the floor. i ask unanimous consent that my full statement be included in the record and that when the roll call is called we support the inhofe-mcquoll ski a.m. -- mikulski amendment.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president? mr. president, i ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: -- i be recognized for a couple of minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: first of all, i want to say to the senator from maryland how much i appreciate the fact that we're reaching across the aisle and doing something that's right for the kids that are out there risking their lives for us. i make it a habit to go to the areas of combat, and with regularity as do other members in the senate armed services committee, and i always get a chance to really talk and get to know them. you learn a lot more by talking to the kids in the mess hall than you do by going to the committee hearings here in the united states. one of the things that they have a real love for as i'm sure the

senator from maryland suggested to you is their love for the commissary. some areas that are remote, there is no competition. there aren't any wal-marts around just the commissary. and there is almost a paternal belief and feeling as people that go around, particularly the spouses that meet there they do their shopping there and it is something that is very serious to them. there is language in this bill that says that they will take an experiment in some five different areas that have large exis -- commissaries and privatize those. and after that takes place do an assessment as to whether or not they should be privatized. this amendment is simple. it says let's do the assessment first. why go ahead and close these commissaries if we find it is something we should not in fact do. we have so many interests. first of all, we have -- i'm sure the senator from maryland mentioned that we have some 25

cosponsors already. this is a real effort. and we have some 41 organizations supporting this bill. i see the time is up, and so i will yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order all postcloture time is expired. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i yield to the chair. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the hatch amendment number 1911 as further modified. all those in favor say aye. those opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment as further modified is agreed to. mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question occurs on the kaine

amendment number 1456. those in favor say aye. those opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the amendment as amended is agreed to. mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that it be in order to make a point of order against all the pending nongermane amendments en bloc. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president i make a point of order that the following amendments are not germane: 1564, 1825, 1559, 1543, 1645 and 1486. the presiding officer: a point of order is sustained and the amendments fall. the question now occurs on amendment number 1463 as amended. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it.

the amendment as amended is agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring it to close debate on h.r. 1375 to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for the act yits of the department of defense birthday and -- for the department of defense and so forth and other purposes. the presiding officer: the question is is it the sense of the senate that debate on h.r. 1735 to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year and for other purposes shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not on this vote, the yeas are 84, the nays are 14. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having